What Enfusion really means for DayZ.

[Irish. 4886]

Dearest DayZ players and fans,

     I have read and sifted through so many posts and topics about .60 lately. And time and time again I am left with the same thoughts - many people do not understand what we are looking at when it comes to Enfusion becoming the game engine for DayZ. So I figured I'd take some time to try to help, if possible. First off, I am simply going to explain what I understand. I may be incorrect, off-base, misinformed, and totally insane. That's fine if you feel that way. But for those that seek to try to understand what Enfusion being incorporated into DayZ means, I encourage you to read on.

     Enfusion, is what .60 is all about really. Yes, the renderer will be DX11 and things will look nice as we have already seen. FPS will improve, so on and so forth. All good things. But its not really what we should be excited about when we think of .60 and Enfusion. What we should be focused on is that the introduction of Enfusion marks a rapid growth phase for the development of DayZ. Prior to Enfusion, with the old legacy engine, the developers had hit several roadblocks. The new game engine, Enfusion, allows them to do things they could never do on the old engine. It is an entirely new way to create the game. Why is that exciting? Because the developers have used a term over and over again, that many of us know all too well, .."placeholder". What they were talking about was essentially this: for now we know this is broke or not right, but we are not going to "fix it" as you would expect. The reason? They are waiting for the new game engine so they did not waste precious time. A lot of the bugs and problems in DayZ can be tied to the limitations of the legacy engine. Those problems can now, with Enfusion, be fixed. 

     Most of us have seen the arguments and grumbles about how DayZ hasn't changed since ___ X date. Many players that take breaks from the game have come back and voiced their opinion that nothing has changed except some new hats, and weapons added. When you look at it, not much was added over long periods of time except new clothing, and loot. People rightfully had concerns. But what many failed to notice was the logic in what they were doing. They were working on things that were not wastes of time. They knew the old legacy engine was on its way out. They knew that fixing certain things, things that did not "break" the game yet were directly tied to the old engine, was useless since the entire architecture of the game was about to change. So they added in all of that loot, art work, and things that seem so useless when you, the gamer, are worried about bugs and in your opinion game breaking issues....   because it was what they could do that was not a waste of time. They were waiting for Enfusion. They worked on what made sense. Things we cant directly see yet. Things that are not tangible for the average fan of DayZ. They prepared for the day Enfusion was ready to be ... uh... enfused into DayZ.   

     All of this was coordinated and planned by many people. People that care about their jobs, families, and reputation in their professional worlds. Bohemia Interactive knew the best plan of action. But most of us players did not. So we became frustrated at times. We rage quit. We complained on forums. We made statements boldly. We hailed other game companies in comparison. We, in essence, were human. And you know what? That is okay. As long as we learn from any perceived mistakes we have made along the way, nothing was in vein. 

     So can we expect it to take another 3 years to develop DayZ? Probably not. Just because the timeline to date so far is X, it does not mean it will be remain the same especially when it comes to transferring over to a new game engine during development. Once that new engine hits, things will be much smoother and simpler for the developers to tackle. Up until now, what mostly has been going on is prepping for this change over. What happens after is the real meat and potatoes, so to say.

TL;DR - In other words, don't think Enfusion is a small step to make the FPS better and add some fog. It is the beginning of the REAL DayZ Standalone we have been waiting for. The speed of development will increase. Things will improve greatly. Be patient and kind.

Thank you,

Irishjake 

[AmazingAussie 38]

We're already running Enfusion engine, just with a couple of old modules still in place in 0.59.

[philbur 476]

But....the running parts of Enfusion were still being overshadowed by the legacy modules I think....so what Iriahjake is trying to say (methinks) is that 0.60 signifies a giant leap forward because it brings into play a more "functional" game engine to handle the implementation of new features and mechanics.

I happen to agree with this...and I might use the analogy of Enfusion being the "workshop" for development of a game and now that the tools are being set in place it will be immensely easier to create things. I can build a frame for a race car using bolts, torches, and a hacksaw...but if I had a welder and steel chop saw I could do it in a 10th of the time and 10 times better. I have rebuilt engines using some pretty rudimentary and old-school tools but when I finally accumulated enough specialized equipment I became so much quicker (and a whole lot better) at it.

Feel free to substitute your own comparisons...but the point is that the dev team must be hugely relieved that they can finally see their work being processed into a project in a more efficient and "useful" manner. The biggest thing for us will be the exponential rate at which builds and content will be released. Using the ridiculous timeline projections seen on the forums is just nonsense.

[DemonGroover 8836]

Agree. The first iteration of the Enfusion engine, as well as the future player controller could be the start of many great things.

[Irish. 4886]

59 minutes ago, DemonGroover said:

Agree. The first iteration of the Enfusion engine, as well as the future player controller could be the start of many great things.

Im looking forward to good things down the line.. 

[Razgries 25]

Well said man, yeah this is the real hype right here, I am so looking forward to 6.0 and just playing the hell out of it so they get as much data as they can. This is really when DayZ starts.

[Razgries 25]

The thing is tho the wait... Man I have been hyping on DX11-12 for freaking ever... ARK has been delaying DirectX-12 for like 5 months now... I am tired of getting delayed. Don't get me wrong, I've got the utmost patience and respect for these guys, just... I want to play something on it's new engine already.

[AmazingAussie 38]

2 hours ago, DemonGroover said:

Agree. The first iteration of the Enfusion engine, as well as the future player controller could be the start of many great things.

The first iteration of Enfusion engine was ages ago.

What happened was when the new renderer was announced, they essentially renamed their current engine in DayZ from Real Virtuality to Enfusion and since then they've been developing "Enfusion" by rewriting old legacy bullshit code from Real Virtuality.

Often people are confused by a "game engine" and believe the engine is just the rendering aspect of it, so some people believe we're not running Enfusion until we see the new renderer, that is false, although I can understand why because the new renderer is such a huge aspect of a game engine. The renderer is only one component out of many important components needed to be considered a game engine such as the animation system, audio system, physics, artificial intelligence and the renderer.

Right now in DayZ there is a new physics system (because Enfusion) and you can locate EnScript sources in the game files by unpacking /dta/scripts.pbo.

[emuthreat 2837]

I am only now realizing how much Enfusion .60 is going to have.  It seems as if this is the actual "Engine Swap" phase of development.  I was a bit dismayed and confused, having only a couple weeks ago first heard about the reloading animations as a .60 blocker, after weeks of having missed the projected .60 release date.  But the voice of reason in my mind tells me that this is the first major new engine meshing attempt; and I suspect that they may have discovered a few things tied to basal functions that absolutely have to be incorporated on the first iteration in order for the engine to be compatible with future content or functionality additions.

It would be great to hear a bit more about what makes those reloading animations so critical to the release of .60, if any of the development team happen by this thread.

I can't hold it against them, though.  Working on almost anything (from houses, to vehicles and appliances, and just about any other relatively complex system) has the same kind of risks involved in knowing what has to be done, but only discovering how certain things must be done, after the work has already begun.

A bit more information on exactly what the new engine is supposed to do would be nice.  I am really hoping for a good set of PatchNotes for .60.

 

[thEchicagoBoy 54]

Boy am I hyped for .60

[Zimorak 50]

"Quiet before the storm" you can put it like that. As soon as they get the Quirks out of the current game engine and such....oh boy....oh boy...

[pilgrim* 3514]

4 hours ago, DemonGroover said:

The first iteration of the Enfusion engine, as well as the future player controller could be the start of many great things.

Well - the grass will still be as flat as a golf green at 40 meters. Middle distance trees will look like bare telegraph poles, You will still see straight through a forest from one side to the other.
And there will be zero ground cover - that won't change.

am I wrong ?

[emuthreat 2837]

Won't change for .60, or won't change for 1.0?  It's a big difference.

[St. Jimmy 1631]

0.60 is the start of the DayZ. Everything before has been mostly just prototyping. Many would say that we're playing pre-alpha and the alpha phase just starts. We get to taste first time what the Enfusion engine really is for the players.

[[Gen]Adzic 241]

You've been here a long time Irishjake and not unlike others still speculating great things about things we really know nothing about.. I love the enthusiasm, staying power and the hope all you guys have.. but I tend to go by eye and whats infront of me, even things what I've read from official sources I started to take with a pinch of salt especially after seeing dev roadmaps for 2014/15 go by. Only time will (and can) really tell us what this engine is really capable of; what it will do for the game in the long run and heck who cares.. we've been waiting this long, whats a few more years? People who are vocally unimpressed and I'd say fairly so in some respects, I hope are hushed one day and get what they were looking for out of DayZ, including myself :)

 

Dean Rocket Hall literally sold me this game, I bought it because I REALLY (on an unhealthy level) enjoyed the mod that he made and his passion and vision to make the game its own entity bled into me,(not gonna lie also a little because it was cheaper to buy EA at that point in time).. the man didn't even need to say much about it.. it was one of them "just shut up and take my money" moments. He himself spoke of great things, things that were never going to be achievable with the mod, I just hope one day I will enjoy DayZ again and maybe this engine and all of what you said will come to fruition, I really hope so anyway. One day I shall install again :)

 

 

Key word has been hope, if you didn't see it. You ever start to lose that and you start to end up like me, all grumpy and shit.. wish I was half as passionate and excited as some of you guys get over things, I used to get all wet, don't get me wrong.. but then certain things didn't meet certain planned times and wet started to go dry and hope started to fade away. Now you get someone like me :)

Edited April 2, 2016 by [Gen]Adzic

[pilgrim* 3514]

 

Subject : rendering and visibility :
A report On distance-rendering, examining unit-visibility and use of ground camouflage in standard middle-distance mixed countryside, non-urban contact and observation, in the context of small-unit armed confrontation.

 

Spoiler

 

Overview: Our analysts expressed surprised that a development team that pays so much attention to arms details and firing parameters, has determinedly and consistently refused to address, and has pushed aside, the whole subject of mid-range visibility, target spotting, cover, observation, field of fire command, combat maneuver, camouflage, oversight, eyes-on targeting, hidden defense positions - the WHOLE subject of average firefight engagements and orthodox-range, combat-manual, standard training and doctrinal open-flank tactical action.

To state this simply :
- the game engine can only run the assets that are in the game
- if you want new functionality you have to create new assets for the game engine to use
- otherwise it runs legacy assets until they are replaced

In fact, this is what has been stated so far [above in the thread]  - and I'm NOT objecting - it empowers work that can now be achieved and plugged directly in place -  and that's Great.

But - take just one key aspect of rendering as a general subject:

Background : You know that different textures exist for the same object seen at different distances from the camera - classically (but not always) there are three textures for each object - these are: close up texture, mid range texture, and distant texture. This technique imitates the human eye because grass ten feet away does not look like grass on the next hill slope, even though it is the same grass.
So absolutely every different material - brickwork, rough grass, concrete, meadow-land, forest, scrub, bushes, stone walls, trees, woodwork, beach pebbles, rock-faces, leaves, broken ground, secondary growth, crops - all need at least three textures each to be implemented according to a calculation of their distance from the camera (i.e. their distance from you, the observer). The break between one texture and the next (e.g, between close and mid range textures) is narrowly delimited and often it is clearly visible.

So - at present :

Situation : If a guy in a ghillie suit or other equipment is lying in the middle of a field, you can see him in exactly the same detail from 70 meters as if he is lying in a parking lot. You could cut out that figure and paste him against ANY texture at the same distance and he would look to your eye exactly the same - against a brick wall, on a pavement, under a forest tree, on a beach.
How much he shows up only depends how much he is similar to the background color. Put him on a "different-range texture" used for the same background material at a different range and he will show differently because the two different environment textures do NOT have the same color.

But this effect is NOT what happens in a real-world exercise, to a guy in ghillie camo who has set himself to be deliberately invisible in the real environment that surrounds him - i.e. in his location of only few feet in extent around him. He has deliberately chosen that little area for its quality to hide him.
 
Solution : If you want to make him less visible - in the game -  in that "open grassland "field where we placed him you have to change the middle-distance "open grassland" texture. But it will not help to replace it with a single new "standard grassland texture". It has to be an extremely more complex texture, it has to work differently, and has to be placed - and locally modified - in relation to the features close and in contact with the camo player. He must be aware that his own perception of his local camouflage assets is very similar to an observer's view of his location from a distance.

Given the sheer number of different middle-distance textures (many of them visible at one single moment to one person observing from a distance) this must take up considerably more processing time over the whole "middle distance" band.

And middle-distance objects such as clumps of grass and bushes have to be 'remembered individually' (something like the instancing process), plotted carefully and individually treated = each localized feature must be rendered in the new upgraded "middle distance" texture to take into account every one of those "micro features". If not, then the gihiile guy cannot take cover realistically anywhere inside real contact distance, because at present the only thing he is sure of is that his specific cover is NOT taken into account at the distance important to him.

Effect : Those differences of tall/medium grass clumps, overhanging leaves, uneven ground shadow, minor broken ground features,sub-textures, scrub growth - everything that is important for contact, surprise, disguise, and line-of-sight realism is SIMPLY NOT THERE for the enemy observer.

For upgraded rendering those often-crowded-together and different elements can NOT be any longer ignored by the whole range of currently over-simplified middle-distance rendering.
In a game where observation, contact, decision-making, and combat is very important, and game focus is 50% of the time on close observation within that paramount and key "middle distance range"  this is vital to any suggestion of realism.

Conclusion: Our experts are stunned and amazed (and disappointed) that a simulation dev team, while paying such great attention to weaponry and firing parameters, has consistently refused to address, and determinedly avoided, the entire technical area of mid-range visibility, target spotting, cover, observation, exposure, combat maneuver, camouflage, eyes-on targeting, ambush, hostile detection, concealed fire, interdiction,  - the WHOLE subject of standard orthodox-range encounters, combat-manual standard training, and doctrinal tactical field maneuver - all that baseline stuff , ALL of it,  is out of the window, SNAFU, SUSFU, and you can't trust a thing about it.

Unfortunate : Therefore omitting this whole subject from the DayZ "simulation" game, is deeply unfortunate, with tremendously important knock-on effects for a wide range of gameplay.

*

Question : Now is there any likelihood at all that the "new renderer" will at least (finally) open a path not requiring "placeholder repetition" towards the considerable work that could improve this desperately obvious omission?

Technical Functionality: Or is this simply beyond the technical capability of BI across the range of games from ArmA to SA and therefore not to be considered ?
Have other proposals been examined, mooted, tested, or have feasibility studies been undertaken?

 

 

thanx - P

Edited April 3, 2016 by pilgrim*

[stinkenheim 249]

I'm fairly sure they've already said they want to increase the amount of terrain objects in the game.

Also @pilgrim, if you quote a source that proclaims to be experts please also include who they are. I'm not disputing your source but it allows everyone a chance to see where it has come from and the age of the piece.

Apologies if it is present, I must have missed it

[St. Jimmy 1631]

If they could make new ground textures at high resolution this is the difference there would be:

The video can still process the higher resolution if you're already watching, so wait minute or two.

Notice how the ground texture change makes it harder to spot. Credits for the textures goes to NordKindchen

http://forums.bistudio.com/topic/141095-terrain-improvement-dev-branch/

It's made for Stratis which is 20km² only but it can be applied to bigger terrains. That's only with the ground texture change. Other thing that can be applied is the mid-texture and better mid-texture is very easy to apply.

Edited April 2, 2016 by St. Jimmy

[JayBiggs 16]

A game engine is made of many parts as others have stated. Some of these parts include the renderer(visuals--effects, shaders, post processing, lighting, particles etc), the audio engine, physics, networking, artificial intelligence, GUI, animation system, etc.

The game is already using the Enfusion Engine. They have implemented new physics(vehicles, ragdoll, item physics) but last I heard the game is still running the old physics system for certain things. When they switch everything over to the new system, the game's performance and functionality should improve. They implemented new pathfinding for the AI and redone the AI altogether. I don't know if there are any leftovers from the old system still in use.

The renderer replacement will obviously bring performance and visual improvements, but the biggest stuff will come with the player controller, EnScript(which is an all-new scripting system for DayZ...as I understand it most things in game now are coded using the old scripting system and are basically prototypes to be rewritten properly in EnScript), and GUI overhaul. Really when those things are in place I think the development will really take off. Exciting times ahead this year for DayZ. :D

[pilgrim* 3514]

22 hours ago, stinkenheim said:

I'm fairly sure they've already said they want to increase the amount of terrain objects in the game.

Also @pilgrim, if you quote a source that proclaims to be experts please also include who they are. I'm not disputing your source but it allows everyone a chance to see where it has come from and the age of the piece.

Apologies if it is present, I must have missed it

The team of experts are ALL ME - Of course it doesn't show, because we are THAT good - but I hoped you'd like my short technical Paper from the Small Unit Advisory to the Joint Committee on the DayZ Military and Survival Zone Multinational Oversight Group (Executive, SUZMOG-Advisory);

(I wrote it and you read all of it) the source is right above here in the thread with my moniker signed to it. I use "we" because,.. well, I'm too much to be one person.

- This is my Qualification for knowing if a bunch of grass I'm hiding behind Exists Or Not.. We (the high-level think tank of ONE person) analyze the situation by playing the game, and spending 1/4 of a lifetime writing up the technical in house team-communication specs and tech parameters for a number of other games, amateur & some pro (unfortunately) programming and reverse engineering, in-house technical feasibility meetings, mockup runs of pre-play dynamics, remembering what has been said previously on these forums and elsewhere by the devs, and by players, checking US army and Brit combat statistics and reading their training manuals, leafing through old NATO tactical dogma on cold war defensive scenarios, casually discussing  training exercises with a cousin officer in the Brit army, wagaming, going to ground unseen, camouflage, ArmA and arma blogs, living rough invisibly, reading autobiographies, noting statistics on standard fire-exchange distances, research into the German 2nd war army sergeant-led unit (in this case particularly in open country and enemy-in-vicinity conditions), textbook leadership advice for tactical fire suppression, crossing open ground under presumed observation, WestPoint advice on frontal assault, hunting and trapping small game, sniper and ambush awareness, perusing sniper manuals, philosophizing on choice of position for fitness of purpose, awareness of cover, consideration of aerial reconnaissance photos, guerilla tactics in various publications, documentaries  and recorded lectures.. and.. and.. whatever..  and .. also.totally whatever..(as it comes up and interests me, ya know?)  I just wanted to generally set the scene, to give players an overall impression of what COVER is about and how much real cover is UNLIKE the cover in DayZ which is dependent 95% on game mechanics COMPLETELY OUTSIDE player control, and has VERY little at all to do with what any military personnel would consider cover IRL when the outcome of firefights victory/defeat/survival and individual lives depended on it. At the Moment DayZ takes those IMPORTANT aspects right away from your control and BINS THEM..

Hence (re the thread and expectations ) there are only three things that count in THIS summary to a topic intro:

- the situation as it stands - from the players point of view and from the technical structure of the game limitations/parameters
- what can be done about it . - what are the deficiencies in the game-play/realism of this one aspect that can be improved, what are the technical deficiencies and possibilities to solve them ?
- what is the intention/plan (if any) to go in this direction ? - does the new renderer affect this hypothetical intention, make this in any way easier, or even ensure that it remains impossible ?
 

Seriously - it is a big technical problem and I do not know of any game that has addressed this integration of complex depth rendering of alternate multiple textures with in-play concealment factors affecting players on a case-by-case environmental analysis basis.. (ie the ideal is - the better the dude hides in what he sees around him, the more difficult he is to be seen from a distance) - this is in NO game as far as I know, because of the excessive processing required.
BI's "military accuracy" focus make BI a good candidate for fielding a novel and effective solution, a first in the genre - But  that's not to say it will even be considered. I think it HAS been considered at BI and (my guess) dropped from any agenda (and at the best, shelved indefinitely). As always... if I'm wrong - My Bad.

xxp

 

Edited April 3, 2016 by pilgrim*
ya know ? .. just stuff .

[philbur 476]

4 minutes ago, pilgrim* said:

 

Seriously - it is a big technical problem and I do not know of any game that has addressed this integration of complex depth rendering multiple multiple textures with in play concealment factors affecting players on a case by case environmental analysis basis.. (ie the better the dude hides in what he sees around him, the more difficult he is to see from a distance) - this is in NO game as far as I know, because of the excessive processing required
BI's "military accuracy" focus make BI a good candidate for a novel and effective solution, a first in the genre - But  that's not to say it will even be considered. I think it HAS been considered and (my guess) unanimously dropped from any agenda (and at the best, shelved indefinitely)

 

I am equally passionate about this kind of thing and can relate somewhat through my personal experience in the combat arms. What originally drew me to ARMA was the emphasis placed on accuracy in-game of environmental metrics and how they affect the tactical situation you are placed in. While DayZ has appealed to me from an immersive and suspense-filled point of view the fact that terrain and general environmental considerations can be manipulated as drastically as it stands now leaves me with a huge disappointing experience "so far".

If there is a way the draw distance, LOD, and light levels could be forced "server-side" then I surly will invest in my own private shard. I don't think this is possible, of course, for many reasons...the biggest being the brunt of the work is being done by the client machine...but it's too bad. I remember having some seriously great LAN bashes with QUAKE, MOH, HL, and UT at my place (weekends with five-six fellow drunk gamers) and one of the BEST ideas we had was to force everyone to run the identical settings on our PCs. It was a bit of trial and error, as we all had varying specs on our rigs...but it really changed the experience by "levelling the playing field" for all of us...removing the inevitable dominance of either the guy who had the best rig or the guy who played a looney tunes cartoon.

I have been playing DayZ, ARMA3, Skyrim, DeusEx, Half Life, Etc. on Ultra settings with a triple monitor setup for a while now and can honestly say that my "experience" is so vastly more immersive and entertaining than when I used to sacrifice quality for frames.

The point where I KNEW I would lose a fight due to the other guy having a massive frame rate advantage is the point where I stopped "enjoying" the multiplayer aspects of that game.

I know it's MY problem and not yours...so I'm under no illusions that my preference towards in-game quality is one that is shared by the masses....but if you dial back my point a bit to a middle ground where graphic fidelity is high enough that LOD and draw distance are at least high enough to allow the intended "experience" to be something that is closer to what the title deserves then I think, in general, players would be better served.

The multiplayer aspect is both a huge positive aspect and also a major detriment to what you take away from a session of DayZ and I can only hope that the quality of frames are treated with just as much passion as the quantity of frames.

[pilgrim* 3514]

^ I definitely tend to agree with that philibur - for instance: when I play night on an SA server I leave my gamma settings exactly as they are for normal daylight play - I never touch them. they stay the same day and night.
And at night, sure, it's dark - it is supposed to be.
I have FUN doing this.

Enjoy
xx P

Edited April 3, 2016 by pilgrim*

[philbur 476]

1 minute ago, pilgrim* said:

^ I definitely tend to agree with that philibur - when i play night on an SA server I leave my gamma settings exactly as they are for normal daylight play - I never touch them. they stay the same day and night.
And at night, sure, it's dark - it is supposed to be.
I have FUN doing this.

Enjoy
xx P

Yup...But that's EXACTLY why I DON'T play at night anymore...I had the odd time where Elektro was alive with flashlights, flares, and fires and it was freaking awesome to behold, and to be part of...and then "along came a spider...who fucked with his Gamma slider!"

[themightylc 56]

18 hours ago, lrishjake said:

First off, I am simply going to explain what I understand. I may be incorrect, off-base, misinformed, and totally insane.

The question is why even long-time-EA-veterans have to be speculating about this. Why is this not common knowledge provided by the dev team?

[Irish. 4886]

41 minutes ago, themightylc said:

Why is this not common knowledge provided by the dev team?

Because common is never common any more unfortunately. :/