New VBS2 features

[Blue_Flight]

I always thought of myself that i would never open a thread about VBS2.
But now look, here I am.
Reason is this page on the vbs2.com website:

http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/index.p....emid=79 (http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=79)

If you read carefully through this features, i think every OFP and ArmA fan will simply be blown away.
In fact i can say that VBS2 especially with all the new features, is everything i ever dreamt off of a combat simulation or evolution from OFP and ArmA.

Now my hope is that BIS will include some of these features for ArmA2.
What i now would like to know is, if anybody knows some confirmed features for ArmA2 which are now also available for VBS2.

What do you all think?

[Abbe]

Makes me kind of drewl...I don't know why...

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[W0lle]

AFAIK none of the VTK features will be included in ArmA2 as like the article says they were sponsored by the USMC and UK MoD for VBS2.

The only thing so far which made it into ArmA2 are the tracers (even though they are not as Milspec as the VBS2 ones are) and the USMC units (real MARPAT rather then the current ACU style) and vehicles. Maybe some sort of 3D editor too but that is not confirmed I think.

Note: I let this thread open for now, but beware if it turns into another BIS/BIA bashing thread like the ones we had in the past.

[Heatseeker]

AFAIK none of the VTK features will be included in ArmA2 as like the article says they were sponsored by the USMC and UK MoD for VBS2.

The only thing so far which made it into ArmA2 are the tracers (even though they are not as Milspec as the VBS2 ones are) and the USMC units (real MARPAT rather then the current ACU style) and vehicles. Maybe some sort of 3D editor too but that is not confirmed I think.

Note: I let this thread open for now, but beware if it turns into another BIS/BIA bashing thread like the ones we had in the past.
I thought that the a.i. improvements (thru dual core), handsignals, destructible buildings and a few other things were BIS developments for Arma II http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/confused_o.gif .

Anyway that is one impressive feature list http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif .

[W0lle]

You might forgive me that I forgot the destructible Buildings. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

Handsignals I don't know if they were intented to be in ArmA2, I have not said that they are not included either as I simply don't know what will be in ArmA2 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Rainbow]

I would named it by one word: Game2 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[MattXR]

Im guessing most of those features come from Arma II as they are being added into VBS2 as an VTK upgrade.. As for the destructible buildings there prob made by BIA

And probably a few of the awesome looking things come from BIA too e.g. thermal imaging etc.. But know one will knw untill the ArmA II website comes active or more info is released i guess.

[Opteryx]

I believe BIS has said NPC's will be able to "gesticulate", so I think we could assume hand signals will be implemented to some varying degree, didn't we even see that in a video released some time ago?

As for deformable terrain... I think it's silly considering the average terrain cell size of the engine. IMO it'd be waste of time to implement in ArmA2 unless the engine could handle higher terrain resolution.

Would be nice with 50k Viewdistance though.

[Dslyecxi]

There are a number of features cited in that PR that come from ArmAII. Additionally, there are many, many features cited in it that can be done in ArmA1 via scripting and mod development. Some things, like the RTE, AAR, etc, are out of the reach of the ArmA1 community and unlikely to show up in ArmA2 (from what we've heard). Still, at the end of the day, even with all of these improvements, I cannot see how anyone who isn't military could justify spending $1500 for VBS2. $1500 for VBS2, or $30 for ArmA + tons of community content.

Also, bear in mind that there are doubtlessly many features of ArmA2 that have not been made public yet, and the whole "grass is always greener" thing definitely comes into play with regards to ArmA vs VBS2.

My job involves VBS2. I use it daily, and while there are many things I like about it (particularly in the way we use it), and it works very well for what we do, there are many good reasons for why I turn to ArmA when I actually want to have a good gaming experience with actual human beings.

[shinRaiden]

To follow up with what Dslyexci said...

Some bits in VBS(2) are code that is/was/will be in the engine that goes into the game products, but for various reasons (such as those recently mentioned by ondrej) were not practical to finish and release.

Some bits are developed and managed entirely by the BIA development team, completely outside any relation to the entertainment development teams.

Other parts, though similar in function, may be vastly different in actual implementation. A case in point is the destructible building prototype for VBS1. It worked, based on modifications done by BIA, but the ArmA2 approach as publicly explained differs radically in actual implementation, for the same net effect.

Many of the differences are due to the overlap and separation of the product development. Again, referencing Ondrej's remarks about the development cycle, engine development and content development are never perfectly in-sync. As a result, engine capabilities developed for future projected gaming products may be stabilized in time for VBS2 releases, which do not conform to the entertainment calendar.

Additionally, VBS2 project development started well after ArmA development was underway, and thus had a 'clean slate' to learn from and compensate for many of the lessons learned from the ArmA development process.

Another aspect is that VBS2 is marketed as a multi-year platform, while Armed Assault necessarily follows the whims of the entertainment market. Without access to actual numbers from either product, I'd guess that the bulk of ArmA sales were made within the first six months of release, with a steady decline in sales following that, with a bump from the QG expansion. That's how the game market works. Conversely, in the VBS2 market, initial sales would have been consciously limited to 'launch customers', with sales and installed base increasing as time goes on, rather than decreasing as an entertainment product does.

As a result, the volume of financed development increases as time goes on for products in VBS2's market, while the entertainment market requires a new product for the new year. This is why BIS saves 'new stuff' for revenue-generating 'new products' and only releases non-revenue bug fixes to provide warranty service and maintain goodwill.


Quote[/b] ]My job involves VBS2. I use it daily, and while there are many things I like about it (particularly in the way we use it), and it works very well for what we do

Same here, and I can think of countless experiences I've had from the support side as an observer. I've seen a field exercise replicated in 15 minutes and run so well that nothing short of ordering KFC would slow down the success. Perhaps the best complement to the work of others is one remark made at a trade show by the spouse of someone in the industry :


Quote[/b] ]"I'm not a gamer, but I understand what you're doing there on the computer, it's that simple that even I could use it. And it's intuitive enough that I can immediately see how it could be used to provide supplemental training."

In regards to specific applications however, I would caution folks that it can be very hazardous to your health to take the helm of the boat when Dslyexci decides to toss you an LGB. There's a reason they put seat belts in the Mark V's, would be nice to have on the Sea Arc's. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif

[walker]

Hi all

VBS is intended for a different market.

Military want the same scenario run hundreds of times until the SOP, training factors are second nature. Gamers would get bored long before this.

The military want every thing and all metrics recorded, where you were second by second, which way you were looking, did you follow the ROE, did you get to the FUP at the designated time, did your team leader pass on the RP, what were your squads accuracy, why did the blue on blue occur, why did your squad loose that soldier, did you use your compass, do you know how it works, etc. They will do hours of AAR and debrief as well as analysis, both comparative and research. Gamers just want the score and most of us do not even want that. Few if any would sit round for a 1 or more hour debrief, or write their AAR.

There are addons to VBS that are classified. Because of international treaties certain weapon systems such as MANPADS are illegal to put in a civilian simulation. Ditto certain TTPs.

You will not find any campaigns in VBS. The Military are rarely interested in narrative (with the exception of historical narrative which is better done in ArmA anyway)

VBS customers will put up with crappy building textures, what they are interested in is the layout.

VBS customers do not want to see the inside of a tank unless it is part of the training system. They have the real thing to train part task on and if they want a desk top trainer for a part task it will be way beyond what a gamer would do and again comes under that classified header and so is an addon to VBS and not in the core product.

The VBS VTK is about giving the customer the ability to make classified content; because VBS is an international product and each country wants its own security cleared people working on their products, not a bunch of foreigners. There are also a whole bunch of business model reasons why BIA and BIS do not do this, that I will not go into.

Kind Regards walker

[RN Malboeuf]

Quote[/b] ]There are a number of features cited in that PR that come from ArmAII. Additionally, there are many, many features cited in it that can be done in ArmA1 via scripting and mod development.
can you specify whar theoretically can e made in Arma1 and what not ? I remember thermal vision was discussed - it was said there's no way ((

[frostwyrm333]

i think handsignals were shown in some of the first trailers.

[CarlGustaffa]

If you had to choose a single one feature from VBS2 to implement in Arma2, what would it be, and why?

For me, I'd have to choose the "Realistic Inventory" which is weight based that affects fatigue and that supports "containers" (I guess that means sacks and pockets).

As mission designer, I am now forced to limit equipment (i.e. only ammo in crates, and "simple weapons") in order to achieve a little bit of realism, with constant complains about why they can't get M4M203 ACOG, NVG, Binocs, 3-5 AT-4s (I guess that is simulated tubes since ArmA only allow a single tube), and 8 M203 HE. If this system was implemented, I could allow them to carry whatever they want, but they add penalties to themselves which they may not want.

[Dslyecxi]

Quote[/b] ]There are a number of features cited in that PR that come from ArmAII. Additionally, there are many, many features cited in it that can be done in ArmA1 via scripting and mod development.
can you specify whar theoretically can e made in Arma1 and what not ? I remember thermal vision was discussed - it was said there's no way ((
A lot of my answers are going to involve ACE, and this is primarily because of how close I am to the project. There are other mods that can do various aspects of the VTK's featureset, but I'll cite ACE primarily.

Breaching
This could be done. We've had missions in the past where breaching is modeled to an acceptable gameplay level.

Destructible Environment
We know this will be in ArmA2. It can technically be done in ArmA1, it just requires an obscene amount of effort that isn't worth it.

Updated fatigue/morale/suppression models
Aspects of this can be done. For instance, ACE has an extremely robust stamina system that probably is more in-depth than the VBS2 version (though I will have to wait to check out the final VTK release to be sure). Suppression is a very likely aspect of the ArmA2 AI, and it may have even been confirmed already. Morale - need more details to know what to say here. In ACE, for example, morale can be modeled further by having units surrender based on various realistic influences.

Handling of Wounded & Enemy
ACE has "battlefield clearance" (dragging wounded), and it's just as good as the VBS2 version. ACE has POWs/surrendering enemies, as mentioned in the previous point.

Realistic Inventory
ACE has a weight-based inventory, but also takes it a step further and introduces volume. The weight has an impact on the stamina system. ACE has rucksacks as well that can hold extra gear, and the interface for it is very slick and easy to use. I know that there are some eventHandlers and scripting commands that make the VBS2 system a bit more technically advanced, but the ACE system is 90% the same end result.

Thermal Imaging
It's not possible to get a perfect solution here, but based on the VTK screens you can find, the VBS2 version of thermal imaging is far from perfect itself. ACE has a kinda-sorta thermal effect in it, but, as said, it's not anywhere close to perfect. It's the best that can be done for now.

Armored Gunnery Enhancements
We all know the answer to this. NWD's Tank FCS is a more robust simulation of gunnery than anything in VBS2. VBS2 has the commander override system, but that's all it has over NWD's mod.

Non-Lethal Weapon Simulation
This can be modded to a large extent in ArmA. A common example from public play would be the 'stun guns' in certain missions.

NBC Simulation
This could be modded/scripted in ArmA. It would not necessarily have all of the features of the VBS2 version, but for the purposes of gameplay, a similar system could be created if desired.

Incident Response Simulation/IED
An IED system can easily be made in ArmA via scripting and modding. I'm not sure how easy it would be to replicate the bomb dog functionality, but I would imagine that if someone really wanted to do it, they could figure it out. The hardest part would probably be the animations.



Ok, those are the ones from their PR that stand out to me as possible in ArmA1. I won't even go into the subject of things that ArmA mods (particularly ACE) can do, that VBS2 doesn't currently support. Two perfect examples from ACE are crew-served weapons (which we have a full, working implementation of, better than the WGL version) and the robust medical and wounding systems of ACE. You can't currently find either in VBS2.

Again, though - VBS2 is awesome for what it's meant for. I enjoy working on it, and the products we use it in (ie: convoy simulators, shooting simulators, aircraft simulators [AVRS]) are amazingly cool. However, I am not going to blow smoke and pretend that VBS2 is somehow the 'ultimate combat sim' worthy of a civilian to spend $1500 on it. I don't believe that's the case. If the price ever changes, my tune may change, but so long as it's $1500, it's not worth it for a civilian user. Take ArmA, add on some good mods, and you have a similar (better in some ways, worse in others) product for a tiny fraction of the cost.

[MattXR]

Wow that mod sounds really cool. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Big Dawg KS]

Quote[/b] ]VBS2 now supports gestures (separate upper torso animation), which are used to provide hand signals and also reloading on the move.

Well I guess this confirms what we saw in the ArmA II trailers. Assuming said feature is as developed in ArmA II as it is for the VTK, I hope BI's artists/design team take advantage of this as much as possible. With proper implimentation it could very well completely alter the infantry perspective in ArmA II, allowing for more fluid movement and overall better animation quality.

Actually thinking about it now, the ArmA II team's implimentation of this feature could either make or break ArmA II. I think it's safe to say most people who play the OFP/ArmA/VBS series spend a lot (if not the majority) of their time in game/sim just walking around on foot. Even subtle changes in the character movements can have quite an impact on the user experience, and this in my opionion is a huge change.

This applies to all products that will include this update too; support for this feature will enable more realistic movement and will make new moves easier to impliment. For example, tied to a reload (recharge, not magazine reload) controller, the arms could be animated for pump/bolt action weapons without the concern of interupting movement.

If abused however, infantry combat in ArmA II could for example become much more fast paced and unappealing to veteran fans.

Anyway, that's what I'm looking forward to in ArmA II.

[RN Malboeuf]

@<hidden>

Quote[/b] ]A lot of my answers are going to involve ACE, and this is primarily because of how close I am to the project. There are other mods that can do various aspects of the VTK&#39;s featureset, but I&#39;ll cite ACE primarily.

Quote[/b] ]Again, though - VBS2 is awesome for what it&#39;s meant for. I enjoy working on it
You mean VTK is created with the help of arma modders ? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
or it&#39;s ACE is created with bis/bia employees efforts ?

anyway - looking forward to your ace release


Quote[/b] ]Breaching
This could be done. We&#39;ve had missions in the past where breaching is modeled to an acceptable gameplay level.

Destructible Environment
We know this will be in ArmA2. It can technically be done in ArmA1, it just requires an obscene amount of effort that isn&#39;t worth it.
i guess it&#39;s something less advanced then in Red Faction (one game i can think of with destrictable landscape) ? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Maddmatt]

or it&#39;s ACE is created with bis/bia employees efforts ?
ACE is a mod, just like any other mod nobody is paid to work on it.

[MattXR]

If abused however, infantry combat in ArmA II could for example become much more fast paced and unappealing to veteran fans.
i highly doubt this.

[Dslyecxi]

Quote[/b] ]You mean VTK is created with the help of arma modders ? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
or it&#39;s ACE is created with bis/bia employees efforts ?
None of the above. My professional real-life job involves VBS2. I do scenario design for a simulation company that uses VBS2 as the basis for live-fire and virtual (laser-based) firearms training.

In a completely unrelated note, I also participate in the ACE development as a hobby. There is no relation between ACE and VBS2, no shared development, nothing. ACE is for ArmA and ArmA2, VBS2 is for the military, and VTK is for VBS2 and has absolutely no association to ACE.

[shinRaiden]

Quote[/b] ]You mean VTK is created with the help of arma modders ? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
or it&#39;s ACE is created with bis/bia employees efforts ?
None of the above. My professional real-life job involves VBS2. I do scenario design for a simulation company that uses VBS2 as the basis for live-fire and virtual (laser-based) firearms training.

In a completely unrelated note, I also participate in the ACE development as a hobby. There is no relation between ACE and VBS2, no shared development, nothing. ACE is for ArmA and ArmA2, VBS2 is for the military, and VTK is for VBS2 and has absolutely no association to ACE.
The point is that much of the content in VBS2 is just that, it&#39;s content, that could be done largely (but not always completely or simply) in ArmA. The difference is that BIA has the ability to make engine changes as required to implement non-existent capabilities (eg thermal, engine-side AI behavioral hooks, etc) as required.

As for any collaboration, while various Bohemia Interactive and partner company employees may be privately involved with various community projects, this is an individual and private matter, and has nothing to do with Bohemia Interactive or any BI product.

[RN Malboeuf]

Quote[/b] ]None of the above. My professional real-life job involves VBS2. I do scenario design for a simulation company that uses VBS2 as the basis for live-fire and virtual (laser-based) firearms training.
i bet a lot of mission makers can only dream about your job http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]There is no relation between ACE and VBS2, no shared development, nothing
i just can&#39;t believe that you have the same editing experience actually working on bis product as all the rest http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
...nevermind though, it&#39;s a curiosity - i know that job is job, hobby is hobby, even though it&#39;s great if you can combine it

[W0lle]

Quote[/b] ]None of the above. My professional real-life job involves VBS2. I do scenario design for a simulation company that uses VBS2 as the basis for live-fire and virtual (laser-based) firearms training.
i bet a lot of mission makers can only dream about your job http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
I wouldn&#39;t say that. It&#39;s a difference if you create scenarios for your private entertainment/sharing it with others or if your job requires you to do them. While the community let&#39;s you get away with not 100% perfect scenarios, your supervisor/CO/customer expects 101% no matter what it takes.
If Dslyecxi can combine both, enjoying creating scenarios and get paid for it - then even better.

I have a million of half-finished scenarios here which never will see the light of day. I can do that and if I never finish them it&#39;s the communities loss, but if I get paid for creating them I can&#39;t drop one idea and start the next, just to drop it again after I get bored. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[SaBrE_UK]

@<hidden>: I&#39;ve been waiting for that sort of info on ACE for a while, yet you just said it then as though you could have at any time. I understand that everything&#39;s WIP and not all features done and dusted but any chance of the ACE website including this sort of detail? Or maybe in the ACE thread? It sounds great.

[Lone.Wolf]

Hi guy&#39;z,

If anyone know this,

Is it possible to do fast roping (rapel) and waterinsertions from heli&#39;s and other speciel helicopter insertions...And is it possible to do HALO jumps...

Thanx
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif

[General Barron]

There are many, many features cited in it that can be done in ArmA1 via scripting and mod development.
By the same token, about 95% of the "new" features that have been implemented by ArmA mods, could have been implemented in OFP.

Some examples: I had reloading while moving working in OFP, as well as battlefield clearance; tank fire control had already been done; dogs had already been made; destructible buildings were possible; tanks with multiple turrets had been created; VTOL simulated; and on and on.

I dare anyone to find one "feature" that has been modded in ArmA that could not have been done in OFP, one way or the other.

The difference is in the quality of the implementation, which is both what you see in-game, and what goes on &#39;behind the scenes&#39; in the code.

ArmA added more features to the OFP engine, allowing for things to be modded with much more quality and much less "hacking". The same would be true for VBS2. The same will be true for ArmA2.



Quote[/b] ]Still, at the end of the day, even with all of these improvements, I cannot see how anyone who isn&#39;t military could justify spending &#036;1500 for VBS2. &#036;1500 for VBS2, or &#036;30 for ArmA + tons of community content.

People don&#39;t seem to grasp the economics behind the pricing.

VBS2 and ArmA are sold in different markets. Different markets command different prices.

In the entertainment market, you can sell a million copies of your software, so you can afford to price it at &#036;30.

In the simulations market, you wouldn&#39;t even sell a tenth of that, so your price must be set over 10 times as high to still bring in the same profit.

VBS2 also has effectively twice the development team of ArmA (BIS + BIA), and it has to provide much more customer support compared to the entertainment market, so it costs more to produce.

The pricing is set by basic economics, just like the price of everything else in the free world.

[Jakerod]

Hi guy&#39;z,

If anyone know this,

Is it possible to do fast roping (rapel) and waterinsertions from heli&#39;s and other speciel helicopter insertions...And is it possible to do HALO jumps...

Thanx
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/icon_rolleyes.gif
There are ways to do it in OFP and ArmA. I would imagine there are ways to do it in VBS.

[Dslyecxi]

Quote[/b] ]Still, at the end of the day, even with all of these improvements, I cannot see how anyone who isn&#39;t military could justify spending &#036;1500 for VBS2. &#036;1500 for VBS2, or &#036;30 for ArmA + tons of community content.

People don&#39;t seem to grasp the economics behind the pricing.

VBS2 and ArmA are sold in different markets. Different markets command different prices.

In the entertainment market, you can sell a million copies of your software, so you can afford to price it at &#036;30.

In the simulations market, you wouldn&#39;t even sell a tenth of that, so your price must be set over 10 times as high to still bring in the same profit.

VBS2 also has effectively twice the development team of ArmA (BIS + BIA), and it has to provide much more customer support compared to the entertainment market, so it costs more to produce.

The pricing is set by basic economics, just like the price of everything else in the free world.
I don&#39;t think that&#39;s even the issue here. The point is more that some people see VBS2 as a magical cure-all for anything wrong with ArmA, and somehow manage to work themselves up to the point that they can justify spending an absurd amount of money on it.

It&#39;s simply not worth it for a civvie, due to ArmA&#39;s existence. I never said that the pricing is too high - it makes perfect sense for the market it&#39;s aimed at. That market is not the same one as what ArmA is aimed at, obviously, but as I said... I don&#39;t think that was ever brought into question in this thread.

[RN Malboeuf]

Quote[/b] ]I never said that the pricing is too high - it makes perfect sense for the market it&#39;s aimed at. That market is not the same one as what ArmA is aimed at, obviously, but as I said... I don&#39;t think that was ever brought into question in this thread.
Why not ? financinal question can be thrilling http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
1500 is sure very high price, but why there&#39;s no demo or smth ? Usual people can only see screenies, read some reports (i saw a thread at armaholic), read advertismen. there&#39;s just no way to get healthy opinion out of it... that&#39;s where myth about super simulator game appears.

Quote[/b] ]AFAIK none of the VTK features will be included in ArmA2 as like the article says they were sponsored by the USMC and UK MoD for VBS2.
let&#39;s imagine i&#39;m an insane millionaire who wants smth to be implemented in Arma/Arma2 (fast ropes or thermal vision). What amount of money i need to &#39;sponsor&#39; feature devepment in arma ? or i misunderstood all this completely ?

[General Barron]

[quote=General Barron,Mar. 28 2008,18:34]
I don&#39;t think that&#39;s even the issue here. The point is more that some people see VBS2 as a magical cure-all for anything wrong with ArmA...

...I never said that the pricing is too high - it makes perfect sense for the market it&#39;s aimed at. That market is not the same one as what ArmA is aimed at, obviously, but as I said... I don&#39;t think that was ever brought into question in this thread.
Ok, I do see your point. I suppose I was reacting more to other general &#39;complaints&#39; I&#39;ve heard about the price of VBS, I do now see that wasn&#39;t what you were doing.

Anyway, I&#39;m really not trying to take this thread off track.

This thread should really remain about the new VBS2 features, and their relation to ArmA, not about product pricing or anything else.

[MattXR]

1500 is sure very high price, but why there&#39;s no demo or smth ? Usual people can only see screenies, read some reports (i saw a thread at armaholic), read advertismen. there&#39;s just no way to get healthy opinion out of it... that&#39;s where myth about super simulator game appears.

Quote[/b] ]AFAIK none of the VTK features will be included in ArmA2 as like the article says they were sponsored by the USMC and UK MoD for VBS2.
let&#39;s imagine i&#39;m an insane millionaire who wants smth to be implemented in Arma/Arma2 (fast ropes or thermal vision). What amount of money i need to &#39;sponsor&#39; feature devepment in arma ? or i misunderstood all this completely ?
Well for one there&#39;s no demo because a demo is not needed, its not aimed at entrainment industry.

two some features of the VTK are going to be in Arma too so that makes that article void because we have seen videos of the AI doing hand-signals in Arma II video.

And an insane millionaire cant beg or demand anything like everyone else here he will have to learn how to mod his favorite add-on into the game unless he pays a massive cash sum to some add-on maker who accepts.

And if you try to pay someone to make add-ons this is what happens

The Result = Banned. :s (http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=69;t=72584) - Look what happened to this guy.

[JdB]

Well for one there&#39;s no demo because a demo is not needed, its not aimed at entrainment industry.
Exactly. We&#39;re talking about business to business here, not business to consumer. The main groups at which the product is aimed at, governmental, law enforcement and military organizations, represent such an large potential buyer, that I can imagine that BIA, or the representative in the area will send someone to demonstrate the product, help in evaluating it, and try to convince them of the need to buy the product.

It works nothing like what the average consumer deals with on a daily basis.

[MehMan]

I believe that the demos they conduct are on a rather larger basis and are called trials, no? The army doesn&#39;t DL demos to see how it works and if it&#39;s worth buying, but they conduct smaller trials and then if they see improvments in the soldier quality they go full scale.

[W0lle]

There is a trial version available. Like all other versions the content is encrypted thus you need an USB-Dongle to use it. No idea how much BIA charge you for a trial version, if anyone is interested you better visit the BIA website and contact their sales department.

[Dslyecxi]

I believe that the demos they conduct are on a rather larger basis and are called trials, no? The army doesn&#39;t DL demos to see how it works and if it&#39;s worth buying, but they conduct smaller trials and then if they see improvments in the soldier quality they go full scale.
That&#39;s the basic idea, yeah. There are &#39;trial&#39; versions of VBS2 that use HASP keys that only have a limited amount of &#39;life&#39; to them. You demo the software to someone with your company&#39;s personnel, help them learn it and show them the potential, then leave them with a system + copy of VBS2 + trial HASP key and let them play around with it for a bit. They show it to other people, the other people evaluate it, you come back for more questions and demonstrations, and finally they buy it and get a full HASP key and the full set of software, hardware, etc.

[Heatseeker]

In the end both the military and Arma gamers want the same. Content creation tools, more overall realism/acuracy and even visual recording and spectating options (AAR).

The major diference is we (gamers) demand better graphics and playable content (in the shape of missions) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif .

[MehMan]

The god mode that the instructor has over his trainees is one thing that would be really cool in ArmA/II. This could probably be scripted in right now, but it could create for some amazing action because it&#39;d be unpredictable.

I wonder how that feature works out in VBS2.

[RN Malboeuf]

Quote[/b] ]That&#39;s the basic idea, yeah. There are &#39;trial&#39; versions of VBS2 that use HASP keys that only have a limited amount of &#39;life&#39; to them
i wonder for how much ? 1000&#036; instead of 1500&#036; ? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]The major diference is we (gamers) demand better graphics and playable content (in the shape of missions)
and we get it (( better graphics, easy gameplay (look at the dispersion) etc- arma is already quite far from simulation ( arma2 can be even further away.

[MehMan]

I have my doubts that you can get your hands on the trial version, because I bet it&#39;s a package deal that only an army that&#39;s evaluting VBS2 can afford. As Dslyecxi said you get a free VBS2 slave/instructor for a week and then you get to wake him up in the middle of the night asking how to delete multiple things in the editor without floating over each one pressing delete.

[khagler]

I&#39;m one of those civilians who bought VBS2. My main hobby is photography, so I think my perspective on spending &#036;1500 is probably a bit different than someone whose main hobby is &#036;30 computer games. ;-)

So far I&#39;ve just been playing scenarios other people created, and slowly learning the mission editor. Some things that I like about VBS2 over ArmA so far:

1. The AAR tool. Worth the entire cost all by itself.
2. Grenade launchers are much better done in VBS2. Instead of having a useless but pretty iron sight, you "lock on" a target by right clicking, then elevate the weapon until a diamond appears around the target signifying the correct elevation. I can actually hit things with an M203 in VBS&#33; Also, you get a realistic grenade load.
3. Suppression for players. A near miss makes the screen flare white and your aim point jumps.

[RN Malboeuf]

Quote[/b] ]1. The AAR tool. Worth the entire cost all by itself.
what&#39;s this ?

Quote[/b] ]I&#39;m one of those civilians who bought VBS2. My main hobby is photography, so I think my perspective on spending &#036;1500 is probably a bit different
i wonder how many such customers are there...

[Maddmatt]

2. Grenade launchers are much better done in VBS2. Instead of having a useless but pretty iron sight, you "lock on" a target by right clicking, then elevate the weapon until a diamond appears around the target signifying the correct elevation. I can actually hit things with an M203 in VBS&#33; Also, you get a realistic grenade load.
Haha http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Adding that feature in ArmA would just take a couple changes in the config. I could make a mod to do that in a few minutes. There is a simple config setting for that. I&#39;ve seen it done in OFP. And it isn&#39;t exactly realistic.
Realistic grenade load is done in an addon as well as certain mods.


Quote[/b] ]3. Suppression for players. A near miss makes the screen flare white and your aim point jumps.
The XAM mod for ArmA does that. Not sure about the aim jumping part, but it wouldn&#39;t be too hard to add it if it&#39;s not already there.
Other upcoming mods will have similar features.

@<hidden>: It&#39;s kinda like the &#39;replay&#39; you can watch in racing games http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif
Although it includes detailed statistics and stuff. Useful for the military. But no more than a toy to the average person.

ArmA by itself lacks realism in places. But mods change that. NWD&#39;s ballistics addon gives realistic ballistics. ACE mod adds features, some of which are in VBS2 and some of which are not. Dslyecxi has already said more on that subject.


1500&#036; to use VBS2 as a game is just not worth it.

[khagler]

i wonder how many such customers are there...
When I ordered it through their web store for civilians, the invoice number was 36. So, probably not too many. :-)

[W0lle]

I suggest we get back on topic, which was about the new features of VBS2 - and not about the pricetag which has been discussed to death already or if its reasonable for a private customer to have it. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[|RE|Monk]

I own both products(VBS2 and ArmA) and I use VBS2 on a "professional" Basis aswell as using it for fun at weekends etc,I have ArmA installed and I agree with everyone that for a normal "joe Blogs",they will probably find alot more intrest in ArmA,VBS2 is aimed at a different market completly,if civis who have the cash want to buy it then so be it,they will enjoy it,


As for the VTK,its looking farkin good,gives it another edge to an already well build sim...

[shinRaiden]

I have my doubts that you can get your hands on the trial version, because I bet it&#39;s a package deal that only an army that&#39;s evaluting VBS2 can afford. As Dslyecxi said you get a free VBS2 slave/instructor for a week and then you get to wake him up in the middle of the night asking how to delete multiple things in the editor without floating over each one pressing delete.
uh... First off, while trial keys do exist, they&#39;re not just handed out on a whim. I&#39;m not aware of any cases where a trial key has gone out that there wasn&#39;t the serious expectation of a minimum of 5 to 15 sales, not counting LaserShot, Calytrix, or content development license additions. You can run the numbers on international shipping for your local postal or courier service, but in all cases you&#39;re looking at express shipping costs for the key and software to be comparable to what ArmA would cost retail. That doesn&#39;t actually cover the cost of procuring the key itself http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

Second, the guy who&#39;s phone rings in the middle of the night isn&#39;t free either. Phone and shipping bills have to be paid, airlines - hotels - rental cars all need to be paid, and those costs add up. Again, you&#39;re free to price those out yourself with any random company off of Google. Airlines don&#39;t take Skittles as payment-in-kind.



Quote[/b] ]3. Suppression for players. A near miss makes the screen flare white and your aim point jumps.

The XAM mod for ArmA does that. Not sure about the aim jumping part, but it wouldn&#39;t be too hard to add it if it&#39;s not already there. Other upcoming mods will have similar features.

Hence both Dslyexci and General_Barron&#39;s point about the vast bulk of the goodies can be largely done in content. Just because in theory they can be, doesn&#39;t mean that in practicality they can be realized. Citing Ondrej (http://www.bistudio.com/developers-blog/arma-technology-inside_en.html),
Quote[/b] ]
Even worse, when current terrain representation was created, most of the design and editing work on Sahrani was already supposed to be completed. The whole island was designed as fictional, and therefore there never existed any real-world data for it. It was not possible to build a whole new world at that stage. As a result, Sahrani does not use the technology as well as it could.
...
While it can be a quite interesting psychological exercise, to observe the reactions of artists when you explain to them a few weeks before the game goes gold "Look, all those gears and gadgets could be moving. Now sit and rework all vehicle models so that this works", one should really reserve such a exercise only for very special occasions.
...
As a result, it usually takes at least one cycle (generation) since the technology became available, before it is used well.
...
I&#39;ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to complete a timeline with 1-4 stages as above for those technologies.


The last point I want to try and impress here, and I know it&#39;s going to go way over the heads of most, but it needs to be emphasized, is the convolutions of the buzzword &#39;Serious Games&#39;. The traditional approach in training is to use what&#39;s called &#39;Modeling and Simulation&#39;, where you are trying to get a visual representation of your proven statistical data. For example, a certification / qualification flight simulator has all the real world equations built in, and is designed using a validated model. The pretty picture is an attempt to visualize the numbers going on behind the scenes. You know what the numbers are, you want to see what they look like.

Serious Games goes the other direction, you have a nice pretty picture but have no idea what it&#39;s representing. You need to work backwords, and try to extract sample statistical data from the representation, then see if it conforms to validated models. Just because the data conforms however, doesn&#39;t mean that the model conforms, so there&#39;s the risk of anomalies popping up and spoiling the data.


Let&#39;s take optics for a random example. With classical M&S, you have all the numbers for what the optical effects are, the challenge is figuring out how to make a picture of the numbers. With Serious Games, you have a nice pretty picture, but no idea and no numbers to prove that it conforms to reality.

However, there is argued to be a middle ground where perfect fidelity is non-critical, that representative data is sufficient. That&#39;s where VBS comes in. &#39;Corridor shooter&#39; type engine design inherently doesn&#39;t allow for the reconfigurability and fidelity required in a dynamic FPS setting, and they seldom scale well to vehicle capacity. Flight Sims on the other end lack the fidelity and functionality to make FPS level activities visually appealing, and event data is often insufficient.

[MehMan]

uh... First off, while trial keys do exist, they&#39;re not just handed out on a whim. I&#39;m not aware of any cases where a trial key has gone out that there wasn&#39;t the serious expectation of a minimum of 5 to 15 sales, not counting LaserShot, Calytrix, or content development license additions. You can run the numbers on international shipping for your local postal or courier service, but in all cases you&#39;re looking at express shipping costs for the key and software to be comparable to what ArmA would cost retail. That doesn&#39;t actually cover the cost of procuring the key itself http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

Second, the guy who&#39;s phone rings in the middle of the night isn&#39;t free either. Phone and shipping bills have to be paid, airlines - hotels - rental cars all need to be paid, and those costs add up. Again, you&#39;re free to price those out yourself with any random company off of Google. Airlines don&#39;t take Skittles as payment-in-kind.
That&#39;s what I&#39;m saying in slightly different words...

[General Barron]

In the end both the military and Arma gamers want the same. Content creation tools, more overall realism/acuracy and even visual recording and spectating options (AAR).

The major diference is we (gamers) demand better graphics and playable content (in the shape of missions) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif .
That isn&#39;t quite true.

For the most part, gamers mainly care about "realistic" features relating to blowing stuff up and killing people. Other forms of realism or features aren&#39;t really as important.

For the military, blowing stuff up and killing people is just secondary. There is a lot more to mission accomplishment then just that.

Small example: turn signals/indicators are CRUCIAL to military users. Gamers would only regard such a feature as &#39;oh, thats nice&#39;.

Non-lethal / escalation of force scenarios are also crucial to the military. Most FPS gamers would find it boring to play a mission for an hour and not fire a single shot.

After action review is perhaps THE most important component for the military, and the AAR phase is more important than the actual in-game mission itself. Not so for gamers, hence the lack of AAR in video games, and the limited interest in modding a high-quality AAR.

Inter-sim compatability is also very important for the military; while I&#39;ve never heard a gamer request that ArmA be able to play MP with Steel Beasts or Close Combat.

Gamers want a &#39;game&#39;, aka an entertaining competition (either pvp or pvAI). The military wants &#39;training&#39;, which is about the process, not the competition.

[Heatseeker]

In the end both the military and Arma gamers want the same. Content creation tools, more overall realism/acuracy and even visual recording and spectating options (AAR).

The major diference is we (gamers) demand better graphics and playable content (in the shape of missions) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif .
That isn&#39;t quite true.

For the most part, gamers mainly care about "realistic" features relating to blowing stuff up and killing people. Other forms of realism or features aren&#39;t really as important.

For the military, blowing stuff up and killing people is just secondary. There is a lot more to mission accomplishment then just that.

Small example: turn signals/indicators are CRUCIAL to military users. Gamers would only regard such a feature as &#39;oh, thats nice&#39;.

Non-lethal / escalation of force scenarios are also crucial to the military. Most FPS gamers would find it boring to play a mission for an hour and not fire a single shot.

After action review is perhaps THE most important component for the military, and the AAR phase is more important than the actual in-game mission itself. Not so for gamers, hence the lack of AAR in video games, and the limited interest in modding a high-quality AAR.

Inter-sim compatability is also very important for the military; while I&#39;ve never heard a gamer request that ArmA be able to play MP with Steel Beasts or Close Combat.

Gamers want a &#39;game&#39;, aka an entertaining competition (either pvp or pvAI). The military wants &#39;training&#39;, which is about the process, not the competition.
I disagree http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif .

Gamers want overall realism, they want a.i. with realistic behaviours, equipment with realistic configuration/characteristics, realistic worlds and even realistic gameplay. If Arma was a "high fidelity" combined arms simulator it would be a even better game.

I think gamers actually demand a higher level of simulation than the mil since military training is more about procedures than handling virtual equipment (they have the real toys to play with) and im positive that not every soldier is a great game/sim enthusiast..

I think the major diference here is in the use of the software, thats all.

[General Barron]

I think the major diference here is in the use of the software, thats all.
True, but different uses demand different tools.

A gamer&#39;s definition of "realism" and the military&#39;s definition of "realism" aren&#39;t always the same.

For example, many gamers find 3rd person view to be &#39;unrealistic&#39;, while calling 1st person view &#39;realistic&#39;; therefore many disable it on MP servers.

The military often finds that 1st person view decreases situational awareness so much that it is unrealistic, making 3rd person view necessary and useful.

Gamers often think that things like pressing a key in order to deploy your weapon&#39;s bipod would be &#39;realistic&#39;. To the military, this just be annoying and a waste of time, as it adds nothing to training.

To a gamer, more complicated controls to simulate simple RL tasks is considered &#39;realistic&#39;. To the military, using a mouse and keyboard to simulate running and shooting is NOT considered realistic. However, there are certain training outcomes they can get in VBS that are either too expensive, too dangerous, or too complicated to train in real life.

[MattXR]

Lets make a Poll what gamers want? That will sort your differences out. but i have to agree with General Barron  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif but its hard to find what people want as everyone is different.

[DM]

Lets make a Poll what gamers want?
The answer to that question isnt hard.

Gamers tend to want everything http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif

[W0lle]

Lets make a Poll what gamers want?
The answer to that question isnt hard.

Gamers tend to want everything http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif
... and for free, without bugs and of course immediately http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[walker]

Lets make a Poll what gamers want?
The answer to that question isnt hard.

Gamers tend to want everything http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif
... and for free, without bugs and of course immediately  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
"Give it to me, or I will scream and scream until I make myself sick&#33;" said Violet Elizabeth.

[Lone.Wolf]

Hey,

Dont remember where i read it but something about the UK forces is almost complete... Anyone know if they will be apart of the VTK and if any other new armies... (i know that there will be some new US Army content).

Thanx.

[Dslyecxi]

Hey,

Dont remember where i read it but something about the UK forces is almost complete... Anyone know if they will be apart of the VTK and if any other new armies... (i know that there will be some new US Army content).

Thanx.
There is a VBS2 forum for any VBS2 customers - questions like that really belong there.

[Lone.Wolf]

Hey,

Dont remember where i read it but something about the UK forces is almost complete... Anyone know if they will be apart of the VTK and if any other new armies... (i know that there will be some new US Army content).

Thanx.
There is a VBS2 forum for any VBS2 customers - questions like that really belong there.
But isnt this thread for the new features of VBS2 also called VTK, so whats this thread about if not related to news about VTK...

[shinRaiden]

The UK content is a multi-facet contracted content and functionality update. Functionality updates I expect will be likely be in the VTK related engine updates. Whether the content is approved for general VBS2 user distribution is up to the terms of contract between the MoD and BIA.

[Lone.Wolf]

The UK content is a multi-facet contracted content and functionality update. Functionality updates I expect will be likely be in the VTK related engine updates. Whether the content is approved for general VBS2 user distribution is up to the terms of contract between the MoD and BIA.
Thanks http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif That was just the info i needed.

[xnodunitx]

Wow,I must admit the thermal imaging and FLIR were definately impressive.

However like Dslyecxi said, a number of those features can be seen in Arma II...one being the building, we see a building with a hole but we don&#39;t know if that is set for fure or dynamic...I&#39;d be willing to bet its sort of &#39;set&#39;.

Which we also saw in ArmaII of an Abrams tank attacking a house, you destroy parts. Sure its not dynamic but in the long run its easier on the performance of this scale. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCQaJh0lnRA&feature=related see, (Note this video and those with it were released around August of last year (and even the video was shown to be placed on youtube in 07..yet the viewers somehow easily miss that point)

There is also a video (earlier then this I believe) showing AI walking down a street, most of them stuck to the building sides, could strafe, lean and I believe gave hand signals, still looking for this one.

[sandzibar]

There is also a video (earlier then this I believe) showing AI walking down a street, most of them stuck to the building sides, could strafe, lean and I believe gave hand signals, still looking for this one.

http://arma2.acci.cz/videa

[|RE|Monk]

New VTK/patch update


http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a314/killermonk/VBS22008-04-0500-04-34-57.jpg

PEQ Lasers
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a314/killermonk/VBS22008-04-0501-55-15-59.jpg

[Eihort]

One of the things I have yet to see anyone mention is the inherent network security that must go into a public release. A military customer operating the software on closed computer networks in controlled conditions doesn&#39;t worry about someone deciding to hack the game causing all sorts of mayhem.

Just think about all the work that would have to go into securing everything involving the AAR module? IL2 hackers are *known* to abuse the function of their AAR recording options to achieve "God&#39;s eye views" of the game while it&#39;s in progress. I&#39;ll just leave the some of the pains ArmA has gone through involving this with "nuff said."

No doubt in my mind USMC and other entities have said "That&#39;s nice, but can we have this too?" and backed it up with a contract to get it done. They&#39;re not there to fund the R&D for BIA/S to implement the features they paid for, just to have them turn around and make even more money off of it releasing it to the public in ArmA. I&#39;d be rather pissed if I asked a friend to make me a nice birdhouse, and I fund him the money to figure out how to give my feathered friends SatTV, just to have him turn around and start selling that to others with out asking me or setting up some sort of way for me to get paid back. I&#39;d be really pissed especially if I gave him access to this invention I made to shrink sat dishes to something that&#39;ll fit on a birdhouse.

BIS isn&#39;t the only company to do this. Games like Steel Beasts and Dangerous Waters (Tanks and Navies) have had their development companies become overly preoccupied with military contracts. Even when they&#39;re using only slightly modifed off-the-retail-shelf software like Combat Edge in the UK with their F-16 pit sim experience running Falcon 4.0, they still find it MUCH more profitable to just work with militaries.

Let&#39;s face the facts: would you rather spend all that time and money developing something that "might" be a retail sucess? Or rather get a known amount of money upfront to make something from a customer you know won&#39;t default on you, and will most likely return for repeat business?

It does hurt though that a lot of us would *love* to have some of those fancy nifty toys to use. I&#39;m really in love with the real-time deployment of units, both enemy and friendly. I think it would be awsome to have more "RPG Game" style elements like "gamemasters" working against a team of players. Tools more in line with what you get in NWN than an FPS game. You wouldn&#39;t have to sit there, pouring over scripting and other things to make Coop MP missions, taking days to produce a viable mission. You could literally do it on the fly with nothing more than "A combined arms force takes a town from a group of well armed opponents with only light vehicle support" idea in your head.

I&#39;ll just cross my fingers and hope for the best and see what makes the jump to ArmA2.

[MattXR]

You cant go onto the internet with VBS, just via network/LAN.

[W0lle]

Definitely not true, there might be no server browser and it is not needed but of course you can connect to a server/other computer via the internet.

[shinRaiden]

There&#39;s no GameSpy browser because 1 - it&#39;s obvious not appropriate and 2 - it wouldn&#39;t work in an &#39;offline&#39; military network. VBS can see anything broadcast in a LAN situation, and if you&#39;re routed you can manage that as well.

[Lone.Wolf]

I ordered my VBS-2 VTK Edition today, so now its just a question of time before i will start that gaming... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[ArmAOfficialTester1123]

I ordered my VBS-2 VTK Edition today, so now its just a question of time before i will start that gaming... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
Gaming...., Ner, Simulation-ing...., Yes, and yes i do own a copy of VBS2.

ArmAOfficialTester1123

A.K.A

blackknight63

Welcome Aboard&#33;

Ollie

[Comrade12]

Arma 2 should have alot of these features.
Why else, on there site they write
"Ultimate military simulation."