Please use the Arma 3 Engine for the Standalone

[black russian 1]

I have read two days ago that unlike of many anticipated Dayz standalone is sticking with the Arma 2 engine.

Although it might be already too late please don't do this mistake!

Here are some reasons why you should use the Arma 3 engine instead:

Arma 2 is a great engine and I have bought Arma 2 and its predecessors long before Dayz because I like the whole concept but the engine does have limits especially for non military purposes. And besides evolutionary updates it is still an engine of 2009.

I know that Arma 3 does base on the Arma 2 engine but a lot of energy went into it which will never be the case for a Dayz standalone. For example it is very, very unlikely if not impossible to add PhysX to the Arma 2 standalone.

PhysX for example would be great for zombie/survival simulator because you can probably do so much more without developing everything on your own. Not to mention Ragdoll effects which would greatly increase the atmosphere.

I am no PhysX expert but if Ragdoll is supported slapping animation of the Zombies could influence the players body. Interaction with objects should be much more vivid like in case of players getting unconscious in front of walls they would lie over them or getting pushed back to a wall and laying against it unconscious or dead.

These are little things but they could have a great impact on the atmosphere.

Like traps, melee even punching could be much easier simulated without developing every animation on their own.

All these things will never be in an Arma 2 engine standalone because they would take too much time to be backported.

Here are some short demonstration of the PhysX possibilities:

https://www.youtube....h?v=qZ2YLBrZnTU

Then the graphics are much better. I like games like Minecraft and don't have a problem with the gaphic there but it does matter for other games. Arma 2 has a great atmosphere and looks good but it is still an engine of 2009 and don't forget that the Standalone starts as an Alpha. So it will stick with this engine for years to come.

Arma 3 is also supposed to utilize cpu and gpu more so it might run better on not high end systems. At least it was mentioned in one of the Arma 3 videos.

I think one of the reasons for sticking with the Arma 2 engine might be time. Seriously I am pretty sure that most people wouldn't care if the standalone is released after Christmas if it does base on Arma 3.

In the mean time everybody has a great Arma 2 mod to kill the waiting time.

And if it is money start a preselling program or something, I think that many would already order it to finance the time in between not to mention that the highly increased Arma 2 sells - which are still very high - should cover it until then.

After reading of the standalone I directly was sure to buy it until I heard that it does base on Arma 2. I didn't understand the discussion about I have bought Arma 2 only for Dayz, why should I buy the Standalone because people also buy CoD MW 1 and MW 2 which is basically the same but some new content and a little improved graphic.

But if you have an Arma 2 mod for free and then should pay for the standalone with basically the same engine - yes, it will be advanced but you won't change the foundation - it isn't that logical anymore. If it does have the Arma 3 engine everybody knows that a lot of development time and money went into it and that it does improve a lot so I think most people wouldn't mind.

One of the reasons for sticking with Arma 2 might be that Arma 3 engine still has some major bugs and you don't want to scare potential Arma 3 buyers away by releasing a product with many bugs (potential irony is not intended - I love Arma and its development process).

I don't think that this is a huge problem since everybody should know that the Arma 3 engine isn't finished yet - Arma 3 isn't released yet either :D - and Dayz Standalone starts as an Alpha.

Even if there are a lot of bugs at least the engine has much more potential so most people wouldn't mind. And if they do they should buy the Beta or the final standalone.

Not to mention that you would get a lot of feedback for the engine prior to releasing Arma 3 which could stabilize it a lot.

Sure there will be some dislikes from the Arma Community releasing the much-anticipated engine for DayZ first but I don't think they wouldn't mind if they get a more stable product through this and nobody keeps them from buying the DayzStandalone too and checking it out.

Arma 3 is supposed to be mostly compatible to Arma 2 addons so converting the content shouldn't be that hard (I think it was also mentioned somewhere that Dayz was already ported to Arma 3). Of course updating the textures and models for Chernarus is probably not an easy process but that's one of the reasons why people are willing to pay money for the standalone.

If the Dayz Standalone will be based on the Arma 3 engine and as soon Arma 3 is released you don't need to support two different engines for your major releases which might save some maintenance costs and both could be extended at the same time.

For example instead of spending a huge amount of time creating/advancing animations in the Arma 2 engine for Dayz it could be spent on better ragdoll effects for Dayz which then could be used in Arma 3 without much effort and vice versa.

You also might think that releasing an engine which development did use so much ressources for a low price in Dayz might be not a good idea but since Dayz isn't shipped with Addon support it can't be really a competition for Arma 3. And like I mentioned it is basically beta testing while additionally even earning money with it.

So please don't do this [huge] mistake and use the Arma 2 engine. I am pretty sure that most fans would like the Arma 3 engine more and everything else should be sorted out during development.

And untl the highly anticipated release everybody is happy with a great Arma 2 mod. :)

Edited August 25, 2012 by Black Russian

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

He said it's going to be a in-between stage of Arma2 Real Virtuality and Arma3 Real Virtuality.

2.5 to quote him.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Bullfrog

[sagemred 85]

Yeah, Rocket claims it's on the ArmA '2.5' engine.

I hope this means they took the ArmA 3 engine and stripped it for DayZ optimization... At least then we'll still get the lighting improvements and ragdolls etc... If they started building from the ArmA 2 engine again... That would suck.

[SmashT 10907]

If you are going to call it anything, call it the "DayZ engine". It's based on the Real Virtuality engine, just like ArmA 2, ArmA 3, Operation Flashpoint, Iron Front and Take on Helicopters are also based on the RV engine, they will take what what works best for DayZ, some of that is from ArmA 2, some from ArmA 3 and some built entirely from scratch.

Edited August 25, 2012 by smasht_AU

[black russian 1]

If you are going to call it anything other than the Real Virtuality engine, call it the "DayZ engine" based on the Real Virtuality engine, just like ArmA 2, ArmA 3, Operation Flashpoint, Iron Front and Take on Helicopters are also based on the RV engine, they will take what what works best for DayZ, some of that is from ArmA 2, some from ArmA 3 and some built entirely from scratch.

You think that you can just cherry pick something like PhysX? On of the main reasons why Arma 3 is delayed is because they are moving from PhysX 2 to 3 and the developers made it clear that is nearly impossible/not feasible to backport it to Arma 2.

Do you have some links. The gaming website I have read had talked about Arma 2 engine. And I don't think that there is an inbetween except of maybe the current status of the Arma 3 engine which might be not as advanced as Arma 3 in the release.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Black Russian

[zak757 146]

Please.

ARMA 2's engine is probably the worst I have ever played. It is borderline broken. Anyone arguing that it is the most realistic doesn't realize you could create this level of realism with most engines today.

[black russian 1]

Please.

ARMA 2's engine is probably the worst I have ever played. It is borderline broken. Anyone arguing that it is the most realistic doesn't realize you could create this level of realism with most engines today.

I didn't post this to bash the Arma 2 engine. Arma 2 has it flaws but it is still pretty powerful. Have you checked how many addons are out there? There is even an addon for Arma 2 where you can dive although the engine was never designed for that purpose.

Not to mention that the engine was designed to be a miltiary simulator, not some melee Zombie game and it is from 2009. :)

Try to do something like Dayz with the CoD engine. I am pretty sure that it is impossible atm.

Arma 3 does base on Arma 2 so some quirks will probably be there too but at least it has more potential and should allow better and easier creatable animations thanks to PhysX.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Black Russian

[scoffield77@gmail.com 192]

Please.

ARMA 2's engine is probably the worst I have ever played. It is borderline broken. Anyone arguing that it is the most realistic doesn't realize you could create this level of realism with most engines today.

The Arma2 engine is broken because the DayZ mod is broken, have you even played Arma2?

Also, That's why they are updating the engine and making Arma3.

[zak757 146]

The Arma2 engine is broken because the DayZ mod is broken, have you even played Arma2?

Frequently. I'm a big fan of the helicopter and sniper missions, when the game isn't crashing/freezing/stuttering (which no other games I have tried do).

[Photolysis 25]

Where did you read this? Rocket clearly stated in a recent QA that they were going to use the Arma 3 engine as a base and develop their own branch of it customised for their needs, so they can make fixes and optimizations for DayZ without negatively affecting Arma.

http://dayztx.com/dayz-news-standalone-updates/

Edited August 25, 2012 by Photolysis

[black russian 1]

Where did you read this?

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.onlinewelten.com/games/dayz/interviews/angst-z-lead-designer-dean-rocket-hall-im-interview-9079/

Edited August 25, 2012 by Black Russian

[conthefruiter 7]

There using arma 3 engine. Geeez you should know this if you check the forums hourly.

[YESbrah (DayZ) 10]

when the game isn't crashing/freezing/stuttering (which no other games I have tried do).

I've never had this problem :huh: maybe Arma II doesn't like you..

[malau (DayZ) 36]

The Arma2 engine is broken because the DayZ mod is broken, have you even played Arma2?

Also, That's why they are updating the engine and making Arma3.

Arma 2 is a beautiful work of art. There's no other engine (except the future Arma 3's) that can power 225sqkm of such diverse and natural terrain. Getting to run around Chernarus playing DayZ really makes you appreciate how beautiful it is and how much work Bohemia put into creating the world.

And on top of all that it is running physics modelling so accurate that it is used by the US Army for training.

If you don't like Arma 2 SP then it's because the genre is not for you, not because the engine is "broken". It is NOT COD, run and gun, jump and shoot, it is the nearest thing to a real war simulation you can get.

Edited August 26, 2012 by malau

[black russian 1]

The standalone engine we are using is a branch of Take on Helicopters, which itself is a branch of ArmA 2 Operation Arrowhead.

http://dayzdev.tumbl...egration-begins

So the site was right, the Arma 3 engine isn't used. Great!

Btw. conthefruiter who hasn't read the forum hourly. :D

Edited September 19, 2012 by Black Russian

[jdu82 2]

And on top of all that it is running physics modelling so accurate that it is used by the US Army for training.

If you don't like Arma 2 SP then it's because the genre is not for you, not because the engine is "broken". It is NOT COD, run and gun, jump and shoot, it is the nearest thing to a real war simulation you can get.

Oh, so it's accurately realistic? Am I just missing the jump/ hurdle button then... or do humans really just "step over" everything? Imagine that... Olympians running up to a hurdle and going around it or carefully stepping over . Kind of silly if you ask me.

Edited September 19, 2012 by jdu82

[bazbake 456]

Arma 2 is a beautiful work of art. There's no other engine (except the future Arma 3's) that can power 225sqkm of such diverse and natural terrain. Getting to run around Chernarus playing DayZ really makes you appreciate how beautiful it is and how much work Bohemia put into creating the world.

Just Cause 2.

And on top of all that it is running physics modelling so accurate that it is used by the US Army for training.

Previous versions were, but even America's Army is used for training, so that's not exactly a testament to absolute fidelity.

If you don't like Arma 2 SP then it's because the genre is not for you, not because the engine is "broken". It is NOT COD, run and gun, jump and shoot, it is the nearest thing to a real war simulation you can get.

Heh. No.

[bazbake 456]

Oh, so it's accurately realistic? Am I just missing the jump/ hurdle button then... or do humans really just "step over" everything? Imagine that... Olympians running up to a hurdle and going around it or carefully stepping over . Kind of silly if you ask me.

If you want realistic animations and fatigue, you should probably play Battlefield 3.

...I can't believe I just wrote that...