Limit map size

[Adjutant]

The game is incapable of populating the world with enough units for the map size of 225 sq km. To improve performance it would be more sensible if just the mission area was rendered and more units processed in real time. Lower end machines would benefit significantly.

[Mr. Charles]

No. 5 characters

[SASrecon]

Step 1: Aquire new computer
Step 2: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/7/73/20110128203738!Trollface.png

[ProfTournesol]

A part of the spirit of this game is map size. So no.

[Ebolavirus]

The game is incapable of populating the world with enough units for the map size of 225 sq km. To improve performance it would be more sensible if just the mission area was rendered and more units processed in real time. Lower end machines would benefit significantly.

unit caching would solve that probem

[RKSL-Rock]

The game is incapable of populating the world with enough units for the map size of 225 sq km. To improve performance it would be more sensible if just the mission area was rendered and more units processed in real time. Lower end machines would benefit significantly.

Hell no!

As ProfTournesol already said, large free roaming areas are part of the spirit of the game. If you want a small scale shooter try BF2 and its clones.

[msy]

the much bigger map won't bring too much trouble if it is not a tropical rain forest like environment. And the much more AI can slow your computer even in a small island.
So the best way is rationally use the amount of AI in a mission.

[NoRailgunner]

If you have a "lower end machine" you just go into option menu and adjust the settings till they fit. If you can afford an hardware upgrade - do it. :)
A3 operations and combat should not take place in a shoebox with countless spawning enemies.

[wolfbite]

The game is incapable of populating the world with enough units for the map size of 225 sq km. To improve performance it would be more sensible if just the mission area was rendered and more units processed in real time. Lower end machines would benefit significantly.

Are you high? Why not play a totally different game then?

[Adjutant]

The real issue lies with the a.i. using up all processing power. Strangely, cwc a.i. on veteran difficulty with super a.i. turned on performs much better than it does in arma 2. The only issue seems to be difficulty in acquiring targets at close range. The ultimate goal for bis is to produce more at a lower cost: a.i. needs to function under a simpler but a more efficient system. As it stands now it is unnecessarily complex.

[tsb247]

A systen like the ACM from ArmA 2 may be employed as well. The game may, "Clean up," after itself by removing units that are too far away from the player to cause them any trouble. I really liked that solution for having TON of units appear to be on the map when there really were only a hundred or so.

[Adjutant]

A systen like the ACM from ArmA 2 may be employed as well. The game may, "Clean up," after itself by removing units that are too far away from the player to cause them any trouble. I really liked that solution for having TON of units appear to be on the map when there really were only a hundred or so.

but if these units are suspended so to say, then they lose the ability to move about and are solely dependent on the player triggering them to spawn again. Flashpoint needs real solutions.

[DMarkwick]

The game is incapable of populating the world with enough units for the map size of 225 sq km. To improve performance it would be more sensible if just the mission area was rendered and more units processed in real time. Lower end machines would benefit significantly.

This already happens.

[Joshua the Grizzly]

I am not sure what your problem is. The major issues that you think would take place only take place if the 225 sqaure mile map is actually fully populated with people. Which it is not.

Now it only takes slightly (note the slightly) more memory. Be aware that the game does not render the entire map in full.

[CarlosTex]

No! I want a map so big that will take me 20 minutes flying to reach the other end flying at 500 km/h speed.

Hell make that 1 hour! :p

[Vixente]

No! I want a map so big that will take me 20 minutes flying to reach the other end flying at 500 km/h speed.

Hell make that 1 hour! :p

I agree.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/3485/jerksmile.png

[NeMeSiS]

unit caching would solve that probem

This. There is no problem as long as you dont go crazy in the editor and throw units fucking everywhere.

[Demonized]

yeah, as said above, we want bigger maps, not smaller.... go get COD or BF for smaller.

[tsb247]

but if these units are suspended so to say, then they lose the ability to move about and are solely dependent on the player triggering them to spawn again. Flashpoint needs real solutions.

Hmmm... Yes and no. Those units could still move with complete freedom as long as they did not stray too far from the player. I don't see this as a problem since said units will likely either persue the player or be destroyed by them. In either case, the player would be unlikely to see the units spawn and/or despawn (is that even a word?) if the system is implemented properly. I'm still not entirely sure how the ACM for ArmA II works, but I imagine it functions on similar principles. However, I only suggest a feature like this to supplement permanently-placed units in a scenario that is meant to depict large-scale warfare.

Whatever the case my be, I don't see making smaller maps as a solution to what seems to be a problem with large quantities of units.

[ziiip]

Or just import one of the many small-scale islands made for ArmA2.

[Trauma.au]

Limited map size? Yea.... nah.

[mant3z]

The game is incapable of populating the world with enough units for the map size of 225 sq km. To improve performance it would be more sensible if just the mission area was rendered and more units processed in real time. Lower end machines would benefit significantly.

I'm sorry but somebody must tell you this:
This game isn't for you.

We need insane big map for 64cores processors and 4SLI high end graphics cards :yay:

[woore]

please 25x25 km map.
1)Bigger maps
2)Less BF2 fans
3)...
4)Profit!!!! :D

[Kristian]

Smaller maps?
lITBGjNEp08
[/Thread]

[NodUnit]

This entire franchise is built around freedom of roaming, so no I don't see this happening even on a per mission basis.

[Andre]

.....

[ScratcH1]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/9491789.stm

IBM has created a 150 gigahertz (GHz) transistor
If we're going to get CPUs out of graphene then we can have almost unlimited terrain because they can have more than 150 Ghz :eek:

[Steakslim]

Yeah, shit we won't see for 10 years.

[gho$t]

Small maps? In my arma? :confused:

[Cossack8559]

I make a lot of missions with friends that involve special forces using choppers,planes being dropped behind enemy lines etc.. The big maps make these missions limitless so i would have to disagree.

In Arma, size really does matter and i would say bigger is most definitely better. :)

[ahmedjbh]

The game is incapable of populating the world with enough units for the map size of 225 sq km. To improve performance it would be more sensible if just the mission area was rendered and more units processed in real time. Lower end machines would benefit significantly.

Wow. I have rarely disagreed with anything as much as that.

Amazingly wrong thinking.

[Flogger23m]

No. One of the good aspects of the game is a realistic size battlefield. Removing this would be a huge step back.

That being said, a future Ghost Recon like game would be nice. :) We could have hoped that the Codemasters games went that direction, but sadly they didn't.

[vegeta897]

I am not sure what your problem is. The major issues that you think would take place only take place if the 225 sqaure mile map is actually fully populated with people. Which it is not.

Now it only takes slightly (note the slightly) more memory. Be aware that the game does not render the entire map in full.

This man speaks the truth.

The only downside to huge maps is they'll take a little longer to load, but in-game performance should not be affected since only your immediate area is rendered/simulated.

[ryguy]

No!
Keep the maps getting bigger until we have only one map- earth! :yay:

[HyperU2]

Go bigger.

[Steakslim]

I'm seriously hoping that BIS presents this Greek island at it's full and expected size. I don't want a partial version or a scaled down version of it. Just from it's view on google earth it already has some interesting area's, and have it in it's full scale would only add another layer of hype on top of the already announced features.

[Papanowel]

I don't want a partial version or a scaled down version of it.

It's a scaled down map, it has been confirmed.

It's 2.4 the size of Takistan, so it's really big.

[Deadfast]

...just the mission area was rendered...

It already is. The game only renders the visible area.

[dale0404]

One of the main reasons I am looking forward to Arma3 is the size of the map....

[CameronMcDonald]

I believe that BIS should just make a corridor coz thats wear all teh acshun occrs.

*throws OP out nearest window*

[Kremator]

I refer you back to the 'get a new PC' section then.

If Arma2 turns into a CoD 'game on rails' it will be time to bin it !

Oh and complex ? My jacksie !

[That guy]

i dont want to sound like im jumping on the hate'n bandwagon, but smaller maps?

did you really like shapur and proving grounds? i mean really, REALLY liked? i like those maps, but they are just so restrictive. so small

for the ArmA3 expansion pack i want a 100,000 km2 chunk of Europe rendered for large scale force on force warfare. you know with shifting front lines and stuff. like WWII, but in the FUTURE! :p

and yes i will have that when i have my 16GB Hexacore processor and 20TB of RAM :p

[Avgeris]

Are you high? Why not play a totally different game then?
why spam all threads?

[Steakslim]

It's a scaled down map, it has been confirmed.

It's 2.4 the size of Takistan, so it's really big.

Who confirmed this?


EDIT: N/M found the source.

[neokika]

Hi Adjutant,

Well, ain't the objective to have the opposite of what you suggest? Even bigger maps?
Like many said already there are way's to make AI spawn and be deleted when needed, through scripting. This is even included in the default Arma 2.

_neo_

[4 IN 1]

You bet by now most people here should know what fail so much in "the game we should not talk about here" and the game after "that game"?

[Mosh]

No. Make the maps bigger.

[Goos]

The game is incapable of populating the world with enough units for the map size of 225 sq km.

The game doesn't have to populate the entire map just key points at any given time. Spawning additional units where & when needed. The current ambient combat manager is an amazing thing also. As for ambient civilians I'm pretty sure they are only spawned when a player gets close to a town but if not then this is how it can work for performance sake.


To improve performance it would be more sensible if just the mission area was rendered and more units processed in real time. Lower end machines would benefit significantly.

In the options menu there is a view distance slider anything beyond that distance is not "rendered" and again units only need be placed at key areas with extras spawned when and where needed.

In short no, no, no large area warfare is what ArmA is all about without it it would be pretty much like all the other shooters out there.

[ZeosPantera]

It's all about optimization. Servers get the brunt of the AI and when they fail they fail hard.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v504/F12Bwth2/Forums/th_LemnosIslands.jpg (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v504/F12Bwth2/Forums/LemnosIslands.jpg)

BTW, The island is 22 Miles by 18 miles. That's 1025 Sq\Km if you don't exclude the water. That is a BIG map.

[Tupolov]

Its not about smaller or bigger maps.

BIS will implement multi-resolution terrain and terrain paging to ensure large scale maps are supported along with adequate detail on the ground.

Anyway, who knows, Lemnos maybe just 1 island for ARMA 3? If they do implement naval simulation there could be more islands!

[jackass888]

Nothing should be limited!!! The only limit is the modders mind. Just include some smaller islands with the vanilla game, that have better performance.

[walker]

Nothing should be limited!!! The only limit is the modders mind. Just include some smaller islands with the vanilla game, that have better performance.

Hi all

This ^^^

Push the limits always push the limits (Yes even with Laaagdoll!)

I should point out that I have played SP games of ArmA I with in exess of 2000 AI entities.
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=62327

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=62517

And have also experimented with ~800 AI plus in MP games in 30 player coop.

Kind Regards walker

[Jedra]

Nothing should be limited!!! The only limit is the modders mind. Just include some smaller islands with the vanilla game, that have better performance.

Yep, ^^^ this and double this!

If someone wants to make a small island that's great, if someone wants to model the whole planet, then great!

[Archosaurusrev]

Step 1: Aquire new computer
Step 2: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/7/73/20110128203738!Trollface.png

I agree.
Simply said but true.

[metalcraze]

The game is incapable of populating the world with enough units for the map size of 225 sq km. To improve performance it would be more sensible if just the mission area was rendered and more units processed in real time. Lower end machines would benefit significantly.

50 comparable AIs in any game will load lower end machines hard

[])rStrangelove]

The game is incapable of populating the world with enough units for the map size of 225 sq km

And you base your personal opinion on which facts?

Seriously, the game doesn't populate the world with 'enough' units (how much is 'enough' ? could you see them all at once if there would be enough? ) because it doesn't need to.

The mod community came up with AI spawning scripts to counter that, i think the earliest i can remember came up in 2003 (for OpF).

[kylania]

There's also a difference between "enough units for the map size of 225 km²" and "enough units for the map size of 225 km² running custom scripts that determine their behavior".

[MattXR]

Bigger is better! plus how do you know that BIS havint got new Terrian Rendering making aswsomeness :D

i Love Huge Maps, i hope it has a massive city in it too! Loved sahrani

[SigintArmA]

Didn't think I'd say this anywhere but... -Clears throat- Go big or go home ^^ Hahaha XD

[Horner]

Hell to the no!!!

[Splintert]

Maybe using a minecraft-like chunk system? Minus the cubes, tiny view distance, and mining.

[Duhya]

I'm not sure if anyone read the OP but he says that the map maker would be allowed
to make a mission area in the huge map and only that area would be rendered, not
that the map should be small.
I would guess there would be a invisible wall and only the area within and a few KM
outside the mission area would be rendered.

I think this would be a good way to render a small part of the map, and would be
fine in some missions if the mission area allowed enough room to manouver around
the objectives without being stuck in a small area (like CoD.)

[SnR]

Find a Community made small Island and go try PvP, you would see huge improvements :p

[Pathetic_Berserker]

I'm not sure if anyone read the OP but he says that the map maker would be allowed
to make a mission area in the huge map and only that area would be rendered, not
that the map should be small.
I would guess there would be a invisible wall and only the area within and a few KM
outside the mission area would be rendered.


Yep, thats the way i read it as well, but we already have a way to do this. take a look at many PVP maps and you can see that they already use triggered no go zones and mission makers can set view distance.

Nothing new to see here.

[Alwarren]

I am not quite sure why you want maps to be restricted in size. Of course you can hardly populate all of Chernarus with AI, but in any given mission, you will hardly see all of it either.

It's perfectly possible to have a very interesting infantry mission on an island like Proving Grounds. You don't need a continent sized map for that. However, having a small map also means that missions on Proving Grounds always take place around the same gas station. With a large map, you can pick which parts of the map your mission takes place on.

The bigger the map, the better. You will hardly ever use all of it in a single mission. Restricting the size of the map will only result in more repetitive scenarios. Something like ZORA could be used to restrict the mission area.

[Assasine]

SASrecon is right.....

Buy a new computer....a big computer....:))
Smaller maps.....please not. What will you do when you´re pilot of a Heli and you´re under fire from infantry? In ArmA you can get away......in BF2.......you get down!!!

[CarlGustaffa]

Bigger (main) maps, not smaller. We tend to get awesome smaller maps alongside the main one anyway. Maybe a few more of these (Utes/Desert etc)? But don't sacrifice the big map. I feel bad enough as it is limiting artillery ranges artificially so that same (whole island) mission can have artillery in some areas and not in others. Making it a tactical awareness issue.

Remember Sahrani and adjacent town spacing? Run for 30 seconds and get to a separately named location? That's just weird. I understand condensing areas are necessary, at least with that technology, but hopefully that is something of the past.

[mrcash2009]

From the OFP:


The game is incapable of populating the world with enough units for the map size of 225 sq kmI dont think BIS wanted this either, its not about killing a rig to populate for no reason when your not even in the area (killing CPU for no reason) its about "open ended" .. meaning that things can freely spawn on the map, plus the fact you can by simply using DAC/Patrol scripts to populate how you would like, to then make a map smaller just in the basis its hard not to populate it all the time is bloody silly and completely missing the point of it.

This is also covering Air war as well, not just on the ground, you play in the air and that map becomes smaller. And then also you have one large map that can be sectioned off into allot of smaller scenario "areas" much like campaigns, which then utilise different areas per situation and then in the end covers the whole map, think of it as lots of little maps stuck together :)

I never think of the large map as anything more than loads of little places to make situations as if the area used is the smaller map. I welcome little maps too but we do always get both anyway. The main map is also a good place for BIS to create the campaigns from too. Either way its made to tailor for all of what Arma offers, Air and ground.

[mant3z]

Instead of demending resize of the map you should demnad an official island 100x100km2 as an second island for small missions etc.

[Old Bear]

WTF ! Only small maps, you are joking of course :cool:

As a player and a map-maker myself, I can tell you that one of the best thing in the game is that you can play on somewhat unlimited terrains.

Of course, it's possible to play smaller terrains in order to get more dense fight experiments. That's why I have built Yapal or Brik for instance and that' also why I am building a small island blended with my player experience of BF:Bad Company.

But in building large playgrounds it's possible to create areas where this kind of feeling can be found, it's up to the missions-makers. When you build the missions you can limit the mission area or using scripts as DAC spawn hostiles as much as you want or use UPS/UPSMON scripts to make them patrol the combat area.

But more technically, from the map-maker point of view, "playability" is not related to the map size but to :
- "terrain grid size"/ map size ratio,
- Objects and clutters set on the map.

*The "terrain grid size" is defining the size of terrain features with a 2m terrain grid size you will get nice features as ditches and trenches, but you must play on a limited terrain, say 1kmx1km, and probably unable to play it in MP. That's why most of map-makers are doing maps with a 10m terrain grid size for terrain between 5km x5km and 20km x 20km. From this point of view, playability is mostly CPU dependent.

*Objects placed on the map as well as clutters -clutters being the grass or vegetation associated with a define ground texture are pulling hard on your video card, that's why -roughly- Takistan country is more playable than Chernarus and why your FPS drop when there are a lot of enter-able house/buildings or highly detailed objects as on Eletrozavodsk or Zargabad. Here playability is more GPU dependent.

So, unless you are looking for bare small terrains such as "desert" in Arma2:OA, you can find small islands such as Mana Island or Isla Del Fuego you can populate with as much villains you want using the right scripts in order to make them spawn and patrol all the area.

[Ferox]

I agree, no way with the limiting of the map size, however if the devs can figure out a way to not use up resources on stuff going on across the island, then that is always a positive.

[Syonco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc&feature=related

[XurdeadX]

He's just whining because his comp sucks, hell no. Get a better comp, but don't ruin the game for the rest of us.