How many people think BI will actually secure ARMA 3 for

[nicraM 137]

DayZ?

Because they won't. It is the same engine with prettier lights.

Also, they have to create a new engine by 2014 for the NATO Alliance, otherwise they lose the contract.

We lose.

[lordopeth 274]

I hope they dont secure it.

Need more of the same threads all day so I can read and laugh at work.

[toiletguy 3]

Alot of people who bought ArmA 2 : CO for dayz only won't be there for ArmA 3 but I screamed like a little girl when i knew that arma 3 is coming out, even before dayz existed.

[Lennsik 176]

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

[nicraM 137]

I hope they dont secure it.

Need more of the same threads all day so I can read and laugh at work.

Is your input really needed? This game is on an engine that is never going to be secure. 1 million people and counting bought the test (we didn't buy arma 2 for that game, we bought it for DayZ) and many people will buy the standalone.

The fact remains, that if Rocket uses the ARMA 3 engine (which is BS cause what about us, the people that bought this engine) the game will have the same issues as this version.

If you have nothing constructive to add, go back to work. ;)

[nicraM 137]

Your post makes absolutely no sense.

No, you make no sense.

ARMA 3 is an engine that is not secure for open play. Therefor, if DayZ is put on that engine, it will have the same problems as this version of the game.

Why should I pay more money into it. I already bought ARMA 2 for DayZ (don't tell me to go play ARMA 2, blah blah blah).

The whole thing is stupid, and with you defending them, it makes them think they are right.

They aren't.

I would like a serious discussion so they can see there are people out there that are pissed. Not only will the version I bought not be finished but the new version that will be peddled will be broken and full of scriptors, as well.

[suspense 210]

DayZ?

Because they won't. It is the same engine with prettier lights.

Also, they have to create a new engine by 2014 for the NATO Alliance, otherwise they lose the contract.

We lose.

Of course they wont, ArmA 3 is ArmA 3, a military simulator for that audience. It is not Day Z, it is not an MMO, and it is not a zombie survival game.

If Day Z wants better protection, make a standalone. Theres no reason that BI should go out of their way, to support a mod.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Also, they have to create a new engine by 2014 for the NATO Alliance, otherwise they lose the contract.

Oh look, another genius who only read the headlines of PC Gamer article and didn't actually read the article or the text of the proposal in question which specifically says they are not replacing the existing engine but rather seek to build upon its functionality.

Edited August 6, 2012 by ZedsDeadBaby

[nicraM 137]

Of course they wont, ArmA 3 is ArmA 3, a military simulator for that audience. It is not Day Z, it is not an MMO, and it is not a zombie survival game.

If Day Z wants better protection, make a standalone. Theres no reason that BI should go out of their way, to support a mod.

The base designer would have to implement the tools, in order for Rocket or anyone else to make it secure, right?

Those tools do not exist, because ARMA 3 is not made for that, right?

Where does that leave Rocket, DayZ and us, the consumers?

[nicraM 137]

Oh look, another genius who only read the headlines of PC Gamer article and didn't actually read the article or the text of the proposal in question which specifically says they are not replacing the existing engine but rather seek to build upon its functionality.

Nah, you haven't a clue and are just aimlessly defending them.

I would like a serious discussion, not people nit picking nor insulting.

Thank you.

[Lennsik 176]

You say this as if Rocket won't have power over the engine when it goes standalone. Hence: You make no sense.

[lordopeth 274]

Fair enough.

Although to compare a video game to what the military needs is 2 different things.

You dont think they could have a modified version of the ARMA 3 engine for consumer use? Maybe they are in talks to use something other than BattleEye? Maybe they are using an entirely different engine?

Answers are not known and I have never been one to speculate until facts are presented.

Sorry for being rude before, its just that these threads about how "we lose" or secure this and that is getting old. Nothing is fully secured, nothing will ever be hacker proof and there will always be issues.

I love the game as much as the next person and every time I venture into Chernarnus I hope I dont get hacked. What else is there to say..

And besides, work gets boring. ;)

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Nah, you haven't a clue and are just aimlessly defending them.

Haven't I a clue?

At no point does the proposal mention "replacing" the engine nor developing a "new" one. It talks exclusively about expanding on the existing engine functionality. Fucking read it if you want to discuss it.

Here's a quote from the proposal:

The current GFT flagship product, VBS2, was procured in a competitive source selection in Dec 08. Over the last three years, the product has evolved to include capabilities such as terrain paging, improved graphic realism, IED training modules, insurgent methodology training scenarios, Special Operations Command(SOCOM) enhancements, an improved cultural and language training capability, and a terrain database plug-in that will facilitate incorporation of Synthetic Environment (SE) Core databases. The Government has also invested in several middleware capabilities that provide additional features such as enhanced indirect fire skills training and combat lifesaver and medic training. The required product will provide the User the ability to connect existing and future middleware via an Application Programming Interface (API) or plug-in. This will enable the

addition of new training capabilities for seamless training

using the Flagship game

as the user interface

. This will ensure the

reuse of a multitude of Governmental and Commercial Off-the-Shelf (GOTS/COTS) products and features already developed

.

I would like a serious discussion, not people nit picking nor insulting.

Thank you.

You're obviously not interested in a "discussion." You want people to agree with you, which is difficult because of how completely wrong you are.

Edited August 6, 2012 by ZedsDeadBaby

[nicraM 137]

If he had any power, then why aren't steps being taken with ARMA 2 to take care of the million plus consumers who are playing it?

If you say, "why would he, when he can make another version (secure) on the next engine and get our money twice"

I ask you, what is to stop him/them from ripping us off again? Cause we were ripped off, no matter how you spin it. There are a million + people and counting that bought ARMA 2 for DayZ not, ARMA 2. I guess we aren't important.

What is to stop them from doing this again?

Why should I trust them a second time around.

You understand that nothing will come from this version, right?

[nicraM 137]

Haven't I a clue?

At no point does the proposal mention "replacing" the engine nor developing a "new" one. It talks exclusively about expanding on the existing functionality. Fucking read it if you want to discuss it.

Here's a quote from the proposal:

The current GFT flagship product, VBS2, was procured in a competitive source selection in Dec 08. Over the last three years, the product has evolved to include capabilities such as terrain paging, improved graphic realism, IED training modules, insurgent methodology training scenarios, Special Operations Command(SOCOM) enhancements, an improved cultural and language training capability, and a terrain database plug-in that will facilitate incorporation of Synthetic Environment (SE) Core databases. The Government has also invested in several middleware capabilities that provide additional features such as enhanced indirect fire skills training and combat lifesaver and medic training. The required product will provide the User the ability to connect existing and future middleware via an Application Programming Interface (API) or plug-in. This will enable the

addition of new training capabilities for seamless training

using the Flagship game

as the user interface

. This will ensure the

reuse of a multitude of Governmental and Commercial Off-the-Shelf (GOTS/COTS) products and features already developed

.

You're obviously not interested in a "discussion." You want people to agree with you, which is difficult because of how completely wrong you are.

All that says, is that there are new training scenarios that will be implemented into the engine.

What are you talking about?

OM...

[nicraM 137]

All I am saying is, secure this game, first.

Is that so much to ask?

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

All that says, is that there are new training scenarios that will be implemented into the engine.

What are you talking about?

OM...

Yes. New training scenarios implemented into the existing engine. Not a new engine.

I'm talking about the fact that your claim that they have to develop a "new engine" is completely false which you can see for yourself by reading the proposal in question which you clearly haven't done yet. It specifically calls for continued use of the existing engine to facilitate the addition and expansion of new equipment and training scenarios.

No mention of a "replacement" engine or a new one developed from scratch, as you imply and as the PC Gamer article falsely claimed.

I suggest you read the proposal if you're so interested in having a "discussion" about it.

Edited August 6, 2012 by ZedsDeadBaby

[nicraM 137]

Now, read this article...

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-08/01/us-army-shooter-game

They have to create a new engine, or get their contract booted.

[suspense 210]

The base designer would have to implement the tools, in order for Rocket or anyone else to make it secure, right?

Those tools do not exist, because ARMA 3 is not made for that, right?

Where does that leave Rocket, DayZ and us, the consumers?

It leaves us playing a mod with limited functionality, until it makes standalone, its that simple. If game developers that releases sdks with their game, were to provide support for said mods, they wouldnt have anything else to do, each mod wants something different, and you cant please them all. So, you please nobody and build upon the game that is theirs.

Now, read this article...

http://www.wired.co....my-shooter-game

They have to create a new engine, or get their contract booted.

Actually, they dont.

The game, the document states, should incorporate the capabilities of Virtual Battlespace 2, but be upgraded with "new gaming technologies available in the commercial market". These include "higher fidelity graphics, an ability to move across PC-platforms, web-based and mobile, and an improved interoperability capability to integrate seamlessly into the live-virtual-constructive environment".

This is all possible within the engine, all it requires are updates.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Suspenselol

[nicraM 137]

The US army's Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO STRI) has published a draft proposal for a game that would meet current industry standards and replace Bohemia Interactive's Virtual Battlespace 2 as its primary FPS training platform -- used to "develop, train, and evaluate the decision making processes for the individual leaders as well as enhance teamwork at all levels" -- reports Kotaku. Seven US-based companies have already expressed their interest in providing such a game, which would see the winning bidder receive £28.5 million over five years.

[nicraM 137]

So I guess I was right and BI has to compete with 7 other bidders to create a new engine, by 2014.

What say you?

Edited August 6, 2012 by nicraM

[The_Albatros 72]

You bought ARMA 2, not DayZ. Stop complaining.

ARMA 3 will be amazing without DayZ anyway.

[jordy@sigux.com 44]

You're talking like the engine is or is supposed to be made for DayZ. It isn't. It's made for a military combat simulator, and it works excellent for that purpose. Now go back to bed kid, BI isn't going to make a custom engine or modify their existing engine for a mod.

[nicraM 137]

It leaves us playing a mod with limited functionality, until it makes standalone, its that simple. If game developers that releases sdks with their game, were to provide support for said mods, they wouldnt have anything else to do, each mod wants something different, and you cant please them all. So, you please nobody and build upon the game that is theirs.

Honestly, Suspense. I like you, you know I do. But the standalone, will more than likely have the same problems. Also, you haven't answered my question about the million plus that paid to play DayZ (this version). What will come of us? Will this game ever progress?

Or, will this game just be like this forever.. an Alpha test product with scriptors galore?

I think the latter.

No matter how you spin it, we got ripped off and many others will get ripped off again next go around. Including myself.

I just want a solid product that I can play and enjoy.

It sucks that this amazing innovative concept is rife with this BS and probably won't ever be fixed.

[nicraM 137]

Albatross and Bright, your inane comments have been duly noted and stored away in the round file.