Standalone: Why be excited about Arma 3 engine?

[Flambo (DayZ) 50]

+ Like everybody else says, the team has access to the source code now. Which means rapid development unlike the slow development of the mod.

Right, but having source access is granted by going standalone, and could happen with either the Arma 2 or Arma 3 engine.

[ski2060 5]

I think he's asking what improvements does the ARMA 3 engine bring to the table.

Does it get rid of a lot of the current engine bugs? Does the inventory system not suck? Is it easy to inject scripts into multiplayer games just like the ARMA 2 MP engine. How is AI improved to make pathing not stupid?

These are the kind of things he's asking about. What improvements other than visual are being made between the two Game Engines?

[oZiix 45]

You aren't in a vest, and often have a pretty anemic backpack (which starts out empty). It's not just doors, either. All the movement mechanics in ArmA2 are increadibly clunky.

Anyway, hopefully this this thread starts getting real responses soon. It's an interesting question.

This thread won't get real responses anytime soon cause no one can answer them. That's why it's a terrible thread.

If we used some common sense here and there are tons of people that have worked on the ARMA 3 engine as the op seems to think. There would be tons of threads with info already.

I don't see any.

Best you can do is look up articles on the announced feature list of ARMA 3 and compare to ARMA 2. Probably better off digging around Bohemia own website than asking here.

[Glyphyyy (DayZ) 16]

Right, but having source access is granted by going standalone, and could happen with either the Arma 2 or Arma 3 engine.

Okay then, its best for the studio to work on one engine. Not back trace to old code from the old engine. Meaning 2 games realesed at once ArmA 3 and DayZ = 2 sets of communities to give feedback and bug reports = faster fixes and improvments?

Somthing like that? I just feel studios learn from there mistakes and improve on things, like in the case of frostbite and frostbite 2.

[Glyphyyy (DayZ) 16]

Okay then, its best for the studio to work on one engine. Not back trace to old code from the old engine. Meaning 2 games realesed at once ArmA 3 and DayZ = 2 sets of communities to give feedback and bug reports = faster fixes and improvments?

Somthing like that? I just feel studios learn from there mistakes and improve on things, like in the case of frostbite and frostbite 2.

Well not all studios *infinity ward*

;)

[Borss 44]

When did they announce that they're using the Arma 3 engine?

[SadPanda (DayZ) 181]

I think he's asking what improvements does the ARMA 3 engine bring to the table.

Does it get rid of a lot of the current engine bugs? Does the inventory system not suck? Is it easy to inject scripts into multiplayer games just like the ARMA 2 MP engine. How is AI improved to make pathing not stupid?

These are the kind of things he's asking about. What improvements other than visual are being made between the two Game Engines?

Why doesn't he look it up instead of asking it on a DayZ forum? Edited August 8, 2012 by SadPanda

[oZiix 45]

When did they announce that they're using the Arma 3 engine?

Interview with rocket yesterday. It's on the first page of general discussion

[SadPanda (DayZ) 181]

When did they announce that they're using the Arma 3 engine?

Rocket did it the other day in an interview.

[Charles Darwin (DayZ) 11]

You aren't in a vest, and often have a pretty anemic backpack (which starts out empty). It's not just doors, either. All the movement mechanics in ArmA2 are increadibly clunky.

Anyway, hopefully this this thread starts getting real responses soon. It's an interesting question.

download an addon called ShackTac movement. It helps with indoor movement a LOT! not all servers allow it but it does help a ton when you can run it. The only major issue I have seen with it is the bench in the southern baracks is far more difficult to get over when you are running STM but if you dont frequent that building but do use other buildings often you will love it!

[sagemred 85]

Right, but having source access is granted by going standalone, and could happen with either the Arma 2 or Arma 3 engine.

It's not so much about what the Arma 3 engine can do for DayZ, it's more about what they can do with the source code. Obviously, things like advanced lighting, PhysX, volumetric clouds and all the other fancy effects will be in RV4 for DayZ to utilize, but other than that, the Arma 3 engine itself won't benefit DayZ much because... Well, it's built for Arma. What we will find though, is that access to the source code will allow zombie pathing to be improved (because it can be written in the engine itself, as opposed to making citizen AI act like zombies as they currently are) and obviously users will not be able to just run a script (this is allowed in Arma 2 and probably will be allowed in Arma 3 because it's a milsim where people can script their own missions, it was never designed for something as strict as DayZ)

EDIT: It also helps maintain the 'feel' that DayZ currently has... DayZ in another game engine would simply not be DayZ.

Edited August 8, 2012 by nfsmwbefast

[skyter 299]

But they could go standalone on the Arma 2 engine, and touch that engine code. I made it clear that I'm asking why we should prefer Arma 2's engine over Arma 3's

Read.

Because the arma 2 engine is just too damned buggy, messy, technically inferior, a pain in the ass to work with, less efficient at scripting and just ugly?... Need I go on?

... OH! PHYSICS TOO!

It was always the logical step for rocket IMO

[OrLoK 16182]

Hello there

IFL was an arma mod that went standalone, albeit with the current engine.

It also inherited many of arma's legacy *ahem* peculiarities.

The new RV engine looks far more polished in an AAA way but I still think it will have it's own feel which many consolians may not appreciate of be able to cope with.

Ie, I *think* it will be a far smoother experience, but will still have that "sim" feel, rather than the fluidity of say BF£.

rgds

LoK

ps the £ was a miss-type but, I actually think it's rather apt.

[whatup2003 67]

For one: VR4 has much better lighting than VR3. Rocket himself used the example of "pitch-black night" in DayZ. It's the result of VR3 not having lighting support for low-light environment.

Once Rocket has the full support from BI(which he already had), he'll have the options to further modify the engine to suit DayZ's development needs. Surely modifying an improved engine (VR4) is better than modifying the older version (VR3).

Edited August 8, 2012 by realm13

[Flambo (DayZ) 50]

Because the arma 2 engine is just too damned buggy, messy, technically inferior, a pain in the ass to work with, less efficient at scripting and just ugly?... Need I go on?

Yes. We know the Arma 2 engine is bad, but what is there to make us think that the Arma 3 engine will not be bad in some of the same ways? I don't expect you personally to have the answers to these questions. I made this thread to point out that these questions are here and should be asked and answered.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Flambo

[whatup2003 67]

Yes. We know the Arma 2 engine is bad, but what is there to make us think that the Arma 3 engine will not be bad in some of the same ways? I don't expect you personally to have the answers to these questions. I made this thread to point out that these questions are here and should be asked and answered.

No1 said Arma 3 engine is perfect, but it's certainly an much improved version of Arma 2 engine. Why shouldn't they build DayZ with the more improved version?

[dilorenzovictor@gmail.com 36]

iirc the demos of arma 3 were running maxed out on a gtx 580. Thats why the new engine is being used over the amra 2 engine. Bohemia didn't wate their money developing the new engine to continue using the old engine, which is a pos and out of date.

[imHark 1]

Oh god, I tried reading through most of these comments but found it so hard... And made me disappointed in my fellow man. How can 70% of you post retarded comments flaming the OP saying of course they will move to VR 4 or saying "Why shouldn't they?" as if it answers his question.

Let me explain. He's not asking whether they will, won't, should, could, have or can't use VR4 for DayZ. Hes asking WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS. Whats NEW with the VR4 engine, what's changed, what runs smoother, what new features are enabled.

I personally don't know the full answer but I know the maps are bigger at least. And optimized for longer view distances I think. Oh and fully enterable buildings is very exciting for me.

Edited August 9, 2012 by imHark

[gizm0 96]

better lighting

[(AOW)n4zRuDiN 10]

Most useless thread ever..

RV4 will have everything that RV3 has but twice as better, and if it takes additional time to move over to a new engine so be it, at the end of the day its gonna be a better game.

Hell man, this shit is pretty self explanatory... of course they can use RV3 for DayZ standalone but why should they? As for all other techical issues you are talking about it has nothing to do with the engine, I'II quote someone so I don't have to explain.

Those technical issues cannot be fixed when they cannot touch the engine code, that's the whole point of going standalone.

Not to be a dick or anything but I hope you know that BI owns RV4 engine so why the hell should they not use it.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Arma+3+engine+improvements%3F#seen

(I feel trolled)

Edited August 9, 2012 by (RaO)n4zRuDiN

[imHark 1]

Most useless thread ever..

Not to be a dick or anything but I hope you know that BI owns RV4 engine so why the hell should they not use it.

(I feel trolled)

Please read before you post. Ill even quote myself so as to explain again to you people who seem so adamant to not understand the question. Or read the comments in the thread besides the first one.

Let me explain. He's not asking whether they will, won't, should, could, have or can't use VR4 for DayZ. Hes asking WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS. Whats NEW with the VR4 engine, what's changed, what runs smoother, what new features are enabled.

Stop posting the same "WHY SHOULDN'T THEY".

[t1337dude 101]

1) Better graphics

2) More optimized (less FPS dips, artifacting, crap like that)

3) Ragdoll (duh)

4) Ambient lighting for night time

5) More fluid control

6) More polished gameplay

7) Better driving controls

8) Objects utilize physics when destroyed as opposed to a stiff animation

The list goes on...

Edited August 9, 2012 by t1337Dude

[A Bush killed me 189]

1) Better graphics

2) More optimized (less FPS dips, artifacting, crap like that)

3) Ragdoll (duh)

4) Ambient lighting for night time

5) More fluid control

6) More polished gameplay

7) Better driving controls

8) Objects utilize physics when destroyed as opposed to a stiff animation

The list goes on...

i am waiting for the lolz when it is announced it will be on the arma II engine. I guess i am use to video game studios doing stupid things. :(

[t1337dude 101]

i am waiting for the lolz when it is announced it will be on the arma II engine. I guess i am use to video game studios doing stupid things. :(

It has already been announced to use the ArmA 3 engine bro.

[SadPanda (DayZ) 181]

i am waiting for the lolz when it is announced it will be on the arma II engine. I guess i am use to video game studios doing stupid things. :(

Didn't Rocket say in an interview that they will be using the Arma 3 engine? Edited August 9, 2012 by SadPanda