VBS2 1.22 ADF, NZDF and SDF Screenshots

[mr.g-c]

Check it out..... http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/index.p....emid=64 (http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=116&Itemid=64)

But guys please tell me what ultra-killer awesome island that is....
This to have in Arma would be a dream come true (one of many).

[W0lle]

Different terrains you see in these screenshots. Some available to the public (general VBS2 customers) and some available only for military customers.

[sparks50]

http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/images....113.jpg (http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/images/stories/ukjan09/1680x1050_VBS2_113.jpg)

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

[bigstone]

Correct me if I'm wrong but...I'm guessing this belongs to military customers:

http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/images....120.jpg (http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/images/stories/ukjan09/1680x1050_VBS2_120.jpg)

Man that looks really nice!!!

[mr.g-c]

http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/images/stories/ukjan09/1680x1050_VBS2_113.jpg

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/whistle.gif
Yes, please how is this Islans called? This looks so superb....
The whole stuff looks totally different than our poor Sahrani, it looks from the scale like the real world, like Photos.....
I want it, i want it now!!!! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

Jesus, how big are some of those Islands?

[W0lle]

http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/images/stories/ukjan09/1680x1050_VBS2_113.jpg

Should be East Timor, not available to the 'poor' general customers though the buildings are.
The one bigstone linked is a new Afghanistan map, also not available to the general customers.

As for the size of them, no idea as we never will see them. The As Samawah map that comes with VBS2 should be approx. twice that big than Sahrani is (though most of it is just desert.)

[bigstone]

Man Wolle that sucks!!! That Afghanistan map is by far the best Afghan map around. I'm a general customer(chunk of change to be one) I wish they would provide us that map or more maps. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Soul_Assassin]

Its sad to see really that the community here has released addons with visually far greater quality than these screenshots present. What is BIA wasting money on? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/images....077.jpg (http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/images/stories/ukjan09/1680x1050_VBS2_077.jpg)

Normal maps were deemed useless it seems for the vehicle and the soldier which looks at best like a good OFP addon http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif

[mchide]

The goal is to have training and not observing beauty of graphic.

[IceBreakr]

Spot on mchide, otherwise they would just buy farcry engine and bunnyhop around http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[CameronMcDonald]

Yeah, when I got VBS2 I (at first) was a bit disappointed by the lack of normal/AS maps. But when you look at it from a purely practical point of view, these optional extras are simply taking away CPU and GPU cycles which could be used elsewhere for greater training efficacy.

[General Barron]

Quote[/b] ]Its sad to see really that the community here has released addons with visually far greater quality than these screenshots present. What is BIA wasting money on? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

Bear in mind part of the allure of "Commercial off-the shelf" technology is that you can run it on a personal computer instead of a more expensive mainframe or custom-built computer. Now, the cheaper the computer that can run the program, the more cost you are saving.

Put yourselves in the shoes of someone who has to buy the hundreds or thousands of computers to run this stuff on.

Heck, the ideal situation for that guy would be for the program to run on all of the crappy computers you already have that only need to run word and powerpoint.

Lower hardware requirements = lower cost to end customers, with same price margin for the software producer.

[Soul_Assassin]

well why is it then that wehicle, weapon and uniform likeness has to be maintaned? Y not just make a cardboard box with big gun (tank) cardboard box with small gun (car) and box with no gun (truck)? Well its because of immersion. But the thing is immersion is increased the more real something looks so the simulation becomes technically more real and suspension of disbelief is further employed.

And about computers: the army is a bunch of boys commanded by abit older boys but still boys :P They will buy good enough computers to run normal maps with their budget.

Im guessing that this is a way BIA has decided to cut costs with lower production times.

[da12thMonkey]

well why is it then that wehicle, weapon and uniform likeness has to be maintaned? Y not just make a cardboard box with big gun (tank) cardboard box with small gun (car) and box with no gun (truck)? Well its because of immersion. But the thing is immersion is increased the more real something looks so the simulation becomes technically more real and suspension of disbelief is further employed.

And about computers: the army is a bunch of boys commanded by abit older boys but still boys :P They will buy good enough computers to run normal maps with their budget.

Im guessing that this is a way BIA has decided to cut costs with lower production times.
Having vehicle likenesses is important in helping soldiers trained on the system to differentiate between different BLUFOR and OPFOR vehicles, and how to operate in and around these vehicles, assuming there is a facility for reasonable interaction between player geometry, vehicle geometry and environmental geometry (which I believe VBS2 has, particularly with PhysX support).

Whether or not they have realistic specular properties and surface textures doesn't benefit the training applications of the models at all, it's merely an immersion factor. Just because they could have been added, doesn't mean it was necessary to add them. Like you said; production costs and times determine whether adding these features is worthwhile given their limited benefit to the function of the software and the core requirements of the customer. The user cost of buying a training suite full of computers that are capable of running a demanding program, is also important to consider when thinking about the customer's requirements.

The UK stuff (well, the stuff produced outside of BIA at least) was produced to a strict deadline in order to to satisfy the British MoD's requirements; and from what I've been told, it was tough to meet this deadline. I reckon producing normal and spec maps for each item probably would have either reduced the amount of material delivered to the customer, or decreased the final quality of other visual aspects of the material, below the addonmakers' full capabilities, even more than sticking to a deadline did.

I know that producing nohq and sdmi textures doesn't take a great deal of time on the basis of an individual addon; but when you're contracted to produce many dozens of vehicles, each with several different variants (which makes for hundreds of individual items), the time taken to create these shaders adds up significantly, and is a big handicap in reaching the deadline.

[Soul_Assassin]

You are right of course. I just merely mentioned that the extra mile was not pushed sadly and that the visual quality of the units on that page is poor. Weather its so intentionaly is another point completely http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[OChristie]

Man Wolle that sucks!!!  That Afghanistan map is by far the best Afghan map around.  I'm a general customer(chunk of change to be one) I wish they would provide us that map or more maps.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
That would be a possibility if the 'General' customers were a priority, the amount that we contribute per copy compared to the contracts that the Military Customers have with BIA, makes the 'General' Customers very low on the priority scale.
So content that may be developed for us in the future will start from a Contracted Customer who will allow a group of objects and/or a map to be released to the 'General' Customers.

I would imagine that the only way for a specific 'General' Customers Terrain Dataset or Addon to be developed would be for individual contracting of BIA, and that is very expensive.

I personally am extremley satisfied with BIA and its support that they offer, they dont have to keep updating us all the time, but they do, and I would imagine that we are all very grateful. I would, with no hesitation, recommend VBS2 to any person that is looking to spend $1500.

I heard on the grape vine that there might be 1 or 2 new maps in slow development for 'General' Customers, but nothing too soon.

[RKSL-Rock]

You are right of course. I just merely mentioned that the extra mile was not pushed sadly and that the visual quality of the units on that page is poor. Weather its so intentionaly is another point completely http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
You've got to rember as well VBS2 isn't like ArmA anymore. its engine has been signifcantly modified and is far more CPU hungry than ArmA. And the recent addition of various features means less CPU cycles available for graphics.

I have a pretty good PC and ArmA actually runs better than VBS does even without all the RVMATs.

[Soul_Assassin]

Buts thats sort of backward development, with this in mind the new more feature loaded games and addons would then be made less and less visually appealing.

Your Lynx is a prime example. It is an addon with superior list of features that take more computer resources to run then your run of the mill addon. Did you descide to sacrifice visual quality on it? no, it looks absolutely great. I understand that with the free public Lynx the motivation is different but in anycase progress should be a forward thing. The VBS2 engine should clearly be more optimised to handle both new features AND superior visual quality, and not sacrifice one for the other in order to avoid developing optimization.

Sort of like if in the coming year they add new features say some uber new animation system. Will they start bringing down color texture resolutions? Will all the new units come with 256x256 texture sheets? Y not? the color is still there, you can recognise the camo too and it would run waaaay faster compared with 1024 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif not to mention 1/3 of the time to make :P Or the helmets will start being cube-shaped (geo-lod is still cubic helmet so it wouldnt change anything)

[Dslyecxi]

You are right of course. I just merely mentioned that the extra mile was not pushed sadly and that the visual quality of the units on that page is poor. Weather its so intentionaly is another point completely http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
The thing is, they're not poor. Even without comparing them to "the competition" (which they vastly exceed the quality of), there's nothing wrong with the VBS2 models. They look like their real-world counterparts to a very high degree of accuracy.

The only people who would say that they "look poor" are people who are judging them harshly in a graphics-snob fashion. The lack of specular maps is pretty much a non-issue. Instead of wasting time on texture map details that don't matter, they've spent time making thermal textures for the thermal system. Now, as far as I'm concerned, there is an obvious difference in necessity between "visual enhancement" things like specular maps, and "training enhancement" things like thermal maps. I can see why BIA has chosen the route they've chosen, and I can't quite understand why anyone would peg them for their units looking "poor" when they quite clearly do not look poor, and beyond that, are easily superior to the models that their competition puts out.

[Soul_Assassin]

You are right of course. I just merely mentioned that the extra mile was not pushed sadly and that the visual quality of the units on that page is poor. Weather its so intentionaly is another point completely http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
The thing is, they're not poor. Even without comparing them to "the competition" (which they vastly exceed the quality of), there's nothing wrong with the VBS2 models. They look like their real-world counterparts to a very high degree of accuracy.

The only people who would say that they "look poor" are people who are judging them harshly in a graphics-snob fashion. The lack of specular maps is pretty much a non-issue. Instead of wasting time on texture map details that don't matter, they've spent time making thermal textures for the thermal system. Now, as far as I'm concerned, there is an obvious difference in necessity between "visual enhancement" things like specular maps, and "training enhancement" things like thermal maps. I can see why BIA has chosen the route they've chosen, and I can't quite understand why anyone would peg them for their units looking "poor" when they quite clearly do not look poor, and beyond that, are easily superior to the models that their competition puts out.
Im not trying to push my "graphic-snob" fashion on you just expressing my opinion. For the money they get for these models you can make all the texture maps in the world on deadline including the "dog-poop" map and the "alien laser track ultraviolet map". SO if anything comes to mind is the optimization issues.

[DM]

For the money they get for these models you can make all the texture maps in the world on deadline
Really? Where can I find a price list which defines how much BIA gets per model? It would be great to know your sources.

[Dslyecxi]

Im not trying to push my "graphic-snob" fashion on you just expressing my opinion. For the money they get for these models you can make all the texture maps in the world on deadline including the "dog-poop" map and the "alien laser track ultraviolet map". SO if anything comes to mind is the optimization issues.
Ok, whatever. I guess you know better than BIA. Perhaps you should consult for them and let them know that they're not doing their jobs as you deem they should be done?

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

[Soul_Assassin]

For the money they get for these models you can make all the texture maps in the world on deadline
Really? Where can I find a price list which defines how much BIA gets per model? It would be great to know your sources.
Its an educated guess if you like  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif. I have worked in a company which made software for police and firebrigade simulations for 1 and a half years. Models we made were not cheap but im absolutely certain that BIA charges way more.

But this is going of track  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif I feel like im being inquizited by all you VBS subcontractors and owners  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/huh.gif This COMMERCIAL product strikes ME as visually unappealing full stop. I THINK they could have made it much better, full stop. Im sorry if I hit a nerve, I ment no disrespect.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[da12thMonkey]

This COMMERCIAL product strikes ME as visually unappealing full stop. I THINK they could have made it much better, full stop. Im sorry if I hit a nerve, I ment no disrespect.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
I feel the same, and it's part of the reason I wouldn't buy VBS2 for personal use, at that price.

I consider VBS2 in the use of an individual to be a game, where in use by an organisation it is a tool. Since most of its features are aimed at training organisations; these features are little more than play things unless you're using them for their intended purpose, which is impossible with just an individual licence. I believe much of its potential is wasted on individual license holders, so it's daft for them to spend money on it if they're not getting the most out of it.

For a game it falls short of my requirements, which are largely based on appearance and entertainment value; and would do even if it cost the same as ArmA. However, if I was a member of an organisation hoping to use VBS2 as it is intended; to train other people in my organisation, these requirements would be drastically different, and VBS2 is by far the best piece of software at doing what it's intended to do.

A lot of people in this community don't seem to understand the point of VBS2 and apply gaming standard to it, including some of its non-military owners. As a result they either undervalue it as a tool or stupidly overvalue as a 'simulator', which is something it is not.

[[APS]Gnat]

Well, people seem to be forgetting that the reason this product is a sucess and why its used is because of the "realism".
Realism would be enhanced by including spec and normal maps etc ...... putting aside the argument for the moment that the PC dont have the power to do everything in VBS2.

Be careful how you throw that back at me/us ... because I can defend by saying "if the look/realism is not really that important, then why did BI use HQ sat maps in those landscape pictures I see ... ?"
Yeh yeh, sure, whatever. Terrain recognition blah blah blah

[Namikaze]

Its sad to see really that the community here has released addons with visually far greater quality than these screenshots present. What is BIA wasting money on?


Y not just make a cardboard box with big gun (tank) cardboard box with small gun (car) and box with no gun (truck)? Well its because of immersion. But the thing is immersion is increased the more real something looks so the simulation becomes technically more real and suspension of disbelief is further employed.


I would, with no hesitation, recommend VBS2 to any person that is looking to spend $1500.

I heard on the grape vine that there might be 1 or 2 new maps in slow development for 'General' Customers, but nothing too soon.


Buts thats sort of backward development, with this in mind the new more feature loaded games and addons would then be made less and less visually appealing.


For the money they get for these models you can make all the texture maps in the world on deadline


Gnat @<hidden> Jan. 08 2009,10:18)]Well, people seem to be forgetting that the reason this product is a sucess and why its used is because of the "realism".
Realism would be enhanced by including spec and normal maps etc ...... putting aside the argument for the moment that the PC dont have the power to do everything in VBS2.

Be careful how you throw that back at me/us ... because I can defend by saying "if the look/realism is not really that important, then why did BI use HQ sat maps in those landscape pictures I see ... ?"
Yeh yeh, sure, whatever. Terrain recognition blah blah blah

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA   http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/nener.gif

[DM]

Gnat @<hidden> Jan. 08 2009,03:18)]Realism would be enhanced by including spec and normal maps etc ......
Tell me this then, how does a landrover, hmmwv, abrams, bushmaster having all its nuts and bolts in a normal map and a nice specular map make it any better for training than one which does not?

You&#39;re taking the "realism" lable (which gets thrown around WAY too much on these forums) a little bit too literally.

You&#39;re all (mostly) missing the bigger picture, that is the point for the users is that it looks like a landrover, hmmwv, abrams, bushmaster etc. It doesnt matter if every nut, bolt, rivet or weld is there, because thats not what VBS is for and it doesnt effect the outcome of the training. If they want to train on the tiny little details of the vehicle, they go and train on a real one.


Edit to add: this is why we cant have nice things: I.e. discussion of VBS on these forums, because it ALWAYS ends up like this... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

[raedor]

Please just stop this discussion. Otherwise this thread will be closed.

Customers are satisfied else they&#39;d not buy it (as they evaluate it before buying).

[W0lle]

Namikaze
If you have nothing constructive to add to a thread, then don&#39;t post at all. Spamming the forums to increase your postcount might result in something totally opposite. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

Your reply in general could be meant as offending, too.

Is it really impossible in these forums, in this community to discuss VBS2 without flaming and insulting? Looks like... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif

[Namikaze]

To imply that I made that post to increase my post count implies that you know what I&#39;m thinking. With all due respect, W0lle, you have no idea what I&#39;m thinking.

I use VBS2 in a professional capacity, and seeing these posts about the "intent" of VBS2, and theorizing about the "reasoning" behind BIA&#39;s decisions, and such is just silly. I merely pointed out that silliness in a way that should be regarded as humorous, not insulting. I have nothing against any of the people here, I&#39;m simply pointing at the silliness of these theories.

There&#39;s no need to (yet again) single me out in a forum that is riddled with flamebait. If you have an issue with me, I&#39;d appreciate you using PMs to convey it.

[Franze]

There&#39;s no need to (yet again) single me out in a forum that is riddled with flamebait. If you have an issue with me, I&#39;d appreciate you using PMs to convey it.
Speak for yourself. Replying with a video link alone, with no comments? Smells like spam to me.

If you have beef with a moderator&#39;s decision, take it up with them via PMs. See rule §18.

Any further public discussion of how the forum is moderated will result in WLs + PRs.

[OChristie]

Anyways lets get this back on track.

Those screenshots are extremley nice, and show VBS2&#39;s beautiful engine and maps at work.

I would love to see VBS2 being used in a professional enviroment.

[Nephilim]

In all honesty, i dont think the guys who are trained/train by/with VBS2 care about the graphics, but rather how to keep their heads down and learn the drills, before they get their arse kicked and flown back home in a coffin.

some people need to get their head outta their ass and realize that VBS2 isnt meant for the broad public, which also reflects in the prize, which for my 2 cent, is absolutaly correct and serves its main purpose, which is (at least on my twisted mind): keeping the friggen whiny kids outta there..

you can already see this with the reactions of some poeple here: man why doesnt arma have this and that bla bla...

BIS and BIA are 2 different companie´s working for different customers, and i´m pretty sure that NONE of BIA´s clients want sensetive training material in the hands of some kids or whoever elses.

nice.. now im´m reinstalling VBS and playing some bit, just for shit and jiggles&#33;

[Soul_Assassin]

OK guys and gals lets not fight http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif I did not mean to cause a inter-simulator war. Ur all correct, VBS is not ment to be super pretty and thats y its not in my OWN HUMBLE opinion http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif. I absolutely dont have my head in my ass http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif and understand that VBS2 is first and foremost a training tool but I never disputed that.

But the discussion was about screenshots of the new units thats all.

With all due respect.

[Messiah]

For the money they get for these models you can make all the texture maps in the world on deadline including the "dog-poop" map and the "alien laser track ultraviolet map". SO if anything comes to mind is the optimization issues.
Remember that the money paid to BIA, and what the developer making the vehicle earns per model are very different things entirely (Not to mention the four weeks deadline per vehicle series - numbering upwards of 6 variants - for the UK content)


Quote[/b] ]visual quality of the units on that page is poor

Given more time, and paid more money, the visual quality would have been far greater. Capitalism at its best http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Kronzky]

Having gamers comment on VBS is about as productive as having a bus driver comment on the latest Ferrari.
He may rightly remark that it ONLY HAS TWO SEATS. And tight ones to boot&#33;
But he might be somehow missing the point...

[Soul_Assassin]

Having gamers comment on VBS is about as productive as having a bus driver comment on the latest Ferrari.
He may rightly remark that it ONLY HAS TWO SEATS. And tight ones to boot&#33;
But he might be somehow missing the point...
No one was critisizing the functionality of the vehicles. But even the bus driver can like or hate the LOOKS of the ferrari. Peole are missing a point, yes VBS is amaizing it can do amaizing things that ArmA cant even dream about, yes its used for training and doesnt have to look great. Please lets stop discussing it and get back to praising it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Namikaze]

Having gamers comment on VBS is about as productive as having a bus driver comment on the latest Ferrari.
He may rightly remark that it ONLY HAS TWO SEATS. And tight ones to boot&#33;
But he might be somehow missing the point...
No one was critisizing the functionality of the vehicles. But even the bus driver can like or hate the LOOKS of the ferrari. Peole are missing a point, yes VBS is amaizing it can do amaizing things that ArmA cant even dream about, yes its used for training and doesnt have to look great. Please lets stop discussing it and get back to praising it http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Not to re-open this can of worms, but didn&#39;t you start the criticizing of VBS2 for not having the visual quality of community-made ArmA addons? >.<

Maybe this thread should never have existed in the first place.

[[APS]Gnat]

The second picture, is that vehicle on fire (different ... "partial" fire effect) or has it simply parked on a camp fire ?&#33;

[Nephilim]

Quote[/b] ] not having the visual quality of community-made ArmA addons?

not to speak of that most "community" made addons dont even reach the "supposedly" low VBS2 or even OFP level..

*sarcasm off*

[VXR]

Quote[/b] ] not having the visual quality of community-made ArmA addons?  

not to speak of that most "community" made addons dont even reach the "supposedly" low VBS2 or even OFP level..

*sarcasm off*
I&#39;m already happy people try to make addons, low or high quality.. if someone is happy with what is created its ok.
http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

[Nephilim]

see its the same with VBS2 http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

if it looks like a F-14, it prolly is.

[Maddmatt]

Gnat @<hidden> Jan. 10 2009,12:05)]The second picture, is that vehicle on fire (different ... "partial" fire effect) or has it simply parked on a camp fire ?&#33;
The front right wheel is just on top of a camp fire http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[bravo 6]

To be honest Im not impressed with the pictures.
Maybe some videos could change peoples opinions... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[OChristie]

To be honest Im not impressed with the pictures.
Maybe some videos could change peoples opinions... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
In all honesty you are not meant to be impressed those pictures are for demonstrating VBS2 and terrains the customers have acces too aswell as the range of soldiers available. The quality of the Images is not relevent, people who own the simulator will not care what ArmA community thinks about VBS2, becasue at the end of the day we are the ones with it, and we get the full experience and the complete emersion of this amazing sim.

[Soul_Assassin]

Well there are ppl in this very thread who own VBS2 and seem to care ALOT if the opinion is negative. Who ever shown these pictures obviously has opened them to public opinion. If someone shows me a dog turd and says its made of chocolate and peanuts obviously I will not know for sure till I try it right?

I am apauled that a constructive negative response is not tolerated and defended with indirect excuses (i.e. its not ment to be like that or theres are far more features in VBS than in arma or ppl who play VBS play it for training and not for visuals) which by the way confirm the negative response.   http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif
Edit: Sorry for the turd comparison. Obviously the author does not diserve that. I was just looking to convey something very contrasting.

[Maddmatt]

Well there are ppl in this very thread who own VBS2 and seem to care ALOT if the opinion is negative. Who ever shown these pictures obviously has opened them to public opinion. If someone shows me a dog turd and says its made of chocolate and peanuts obviously I will not know for sure till I try it right?

I am apauled that a constructive negative response is not tolerated and defended with indirect excuses (i.e. its not ment to be like that or theres are far more features in VBS than in arma or ppl who play VBS play it for training and not for visuals) which by the way confirm the negative response.   http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif
Edit: Sorry for the turd comparison. Obviously the author does not diserve that. I was just looking to convey something very contrasting.
All people have tried to do is explain to you why the lack of certain shaders does not matter for VBS2.

It&#39;s not a PC game for graphics lovers. The military will not care for normal maps. Is it really that hard to understand? You&#39;re making a big fuss over something minor that doesn&#39;t even concern gamers. VBS2 is not aimed at gamers.

Good shaders are great for ArmA but unnecessary and not worth the extra graphics power required for the military.

[[APS]Gnat]

Good shaders are great for ArmA but unnecessary and not worth the extra graphics power required for the military.
I want to talk to this civilized and don&#39;t want a VBS2 thread closed ....

Agree on the "extra graphics power required"
But was questioning the "unnecessary" still with relations to Realism.

- Glint of the hood of a distant (civilian) car / vehicle / plane
- A windscreen flash on a distant hill
- Obvious painted matalic vehicle as seen hiding in bushes or forest (not so obvious when everything is flat / matte)

I guessing I&#39;m talking about spotting stuff and I&#39;m just saying when everything is flat, its not like real life when certain objects do give themselves away.

Maybe its just "sure, that true, but that will have to wait to VBS3"

[Maddmatt]

Gnat @<hidden> Jan. 11 2009,14:12)]- Glint of the hood of a distant (civilian) car / vehicle / plane
- A windscreen flash on a distant hill
- Obvious painted matalic vehicle as seen hiding in bushes or forest (not so obvious when everything is flat / matte)
It&#39;s not like ArmA&#39;s shaders are that realistic though. Besides, I think military vehicles are not usually as shiny as the ArmA ones.

[Nephilim]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">To be honest Im not impressed with the pictures.
Maybe some videos could change peoples opinions... &#58;&#41;[/QUOTE]

you know, when vbs1 was released, people were running around with wet willies drooling over the fact what was possible and how vbs1 looked better compared to ofp and everyone was enraged about that BIS doesnt release stuff from vbs1 for ofp.

its the same with vbs2. theres a ton of things possible in vbs2 that isnt in arma (per se) and people drool(ed) over it over and over again and complain why BIS doesnt implement it in arma..

so you see, vbs is not about looks, but rather about what is possible, eg fully working drones, fully working ac-130, mission rehearsal, etc etc.


Quote[/b] ]- Glint of the hood of a distant (civilian) car / vehicle / plane
- A windscreen flash on a distant hill
- Obvious painted matalic vehicle as seen hiding in bushes or forest (not so obvious when everything is flat / matte)

I guessing I&#39;m talking about spotting stuff and I&#39;m just saying when everything is flat, its not like real life when certain objects do give themselves away.

its not like people train with it 24/7 and then go straight to war.
some RL training will always be needed.

if you come from that direction you could also argue with mipmapping occluding people in an unrealistic way, or LOD´s or distance fog etc etc etc.

no one said vbs1/2 is ultra realistic in any terms, its a training tool for certain tasks to cut down costs.

eg why spend cash on rounds and gallons of fuel for basic convoy training or helicopter load operations, when you can also do this with VBS? in the end you still need to do some drill in RL, but in the meantime you can master the basic procedure in the simulator.

its exactly the same with flight simulators. you learn when to push which button in what situation. i guess if youd do it wrong in RL you might end up as a pancake on the ground.
And do these simulator look real? geez some of them have worse graphics than acecombat 1, but they do their job.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">It&#39;s not like ArmA&#39;s shaders are that realistic though. Besides, I think military vehicles are not usually as shiny as the ArmA ones[/QUOTE]
exactly.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Who ever shown these pictures obviously has opened them to public opinion.[/QUOTE]
or to give possible customers something to show?
or just for shit and giggles? might be the same thing as its with duke nukem forever (the shit and giggles). do you think itll be released one day? i dont even think theyre working on it at all.... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

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

[DM]

I am apauled that a constructive negative response is not tolerated and defended with indirect excuses
I&#39;m sorry, but when did

Its sad to see really that the community here has released addons with visually far greater quality than these screenshots present. What is BIA wasting money on?

Normal maps were deemed useless it seems for the vehicle and the soldier which looks at best like a good OFP addon
Become considered constructive? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

[bravo 6]

I&#39;m just trying to say that with time ArmA, ArmAII will possibly be as good as VBS2 or even better if you consider the things they don&#39;t want to implement, such as simulating a realistic world nature eye candy. Eye candy can also create some feelings in peoples head, conditioning some behaviors.

Again, to be honest, i don&#39;t care if they don&#39;t want to create, improve the natural world terrain it self. They do what they want, and people buy if they want. My opinion was posted for those who are interested, for those who don&#39;t care, ignore it.



I still don&#39;t understand why VBS2 personal are creating/simulating a realistic combat program for the military personal and don&#39;t simulate the terrain as natural as possible aswell. As we all know the terrain it self in reality is also a aspect to consider in military tactics, and sometimes things change due to them, even psychologically.
Also, instead of trying to improve the terrain technology, preparing it and making it better for the future they rather wait and do nothing about the terrain it self. Without the so called eye candy, the military personal will train under a program that completely ignores the feeling it can generate to the human mind.

Peace,
and thank you BIS for ArmA and ArmAII.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[DM]

Eye candy can also create some feelings in peoples head, conditioning some behaviors.
As has been said already, the "eye candy" parts of the training are done in the real world. VBS is more for the conditional training - what to do when your convoy is IED&#39;d etc etc. Doesnt need to be overly pretty to do that.


Again, to be honest, i don&#39;t care if they don&#39;t want to create, improve the natural world terrain it self. They do what they want, and people buy if they want.
As far as I understand it, they do what the customer wants, not what they want. According to the website, development was driven be USMC and ADF requirements, and I&#39;m sure some of the other bigger customers had some input too. BIA isnt like a mod team who can do what they want, they get contracted to make specific things/functionality for the customers.


I still don&#39;t understand why VBS2 personal are creating/simulating a realistic combat program for the military personal and don&#39;t simulate the terrain as natural as possible aswell.
Biggest limitation here is the size of the terrains the customers want. 100+ km terrains with the current limitations of the tools are quite hard to populate realistically. Hell, even when we were looking at Tonal remake for ArmA, we came up with numbers like; ArmA object density = approx 1 object per square meter, whereas real world density can be more like 5, 10 or even 20 or more depending on the location and terrain. Couple with that limited grid size, the real world has a "land grid" with resolution in mm, whereas the engine is limited to 5 or 10m. As a terrain developer yourself, you should appreciate the limitations, yes?

Also, the terrains in VBS do appear to have vastly improoved over the last few releases, with much more detailed and "pretty" terrain being produced.



Also, instead of trying to improve the terrain technology, preparing it and making it better for the future they rather wait and do nothing about the terrain it self.
I&#39;m interested to know what you know about the technological developments that may or may not have been made over the last year or so by BIA or BIS? It seems you have intricate knowledge of what goes on in BIA in order to make such statements?


Without the so called eye candy, the military personal will train under a program that completely ignores the feeling it can generate to the human mind.
Having had the chance to try loadmaster (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=IyHg0Asez5I) and the Sniper Trainer (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=BBUWQhr1kFA) first hand, I can say that it sucks you in [b]completely, even with the "poor models" and "ugly terrain". Have you had chance to try similar things yourself to be able to make such statements?

Just a few more cents for the pile...

[Nephilim]

Add few bucks of mine DM

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

[bravo 6]

Also, instead of trying to improve the terrain technology, preparing it and making it better for the future they rather wait and do nothing about the terrain it self.
I&#39;m interested to know what you know about the technological developments that may or may not have been made over the last year or so by BIA or BIS? It seems you have intricate knowledge of what goes on in BIA in order to make such statements?
Along the years they have spoken and talked about their ambitions, their developments and plans for the future, and what i said was based on that, because normally they say what they pretend to do in pre-hand, and nothing was mentioned.
That kinda technology was already spoken and mentioned in the past.
So, please, don&#39;t corrupt things again, as you use to do occasionally.




Without the so called eye candy, the military personal will train under a program that completely ignores the feeling it can generate to the human mind.
Having had the chance to try loadmaster (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=IyHg0Asez5I) and the Sniper Trainer (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=BBUWQhr1kFA) first hand, I can say that it sucks you in completely, even with the "poor models" and "ugly terrain". Have you had chance to try similar things yourself to be able to make such statements?

Just a few more cents for the pile...
Unfortunately i hadn&#39;t such luck, but i don&#39;t really mind.
We all know, for years, that you are a great privileged. Im glad that you have the possibility to try out in first hand, and happy that you shared such information.
I&#39;m also glad that you can have such equipment at home so you can train without any dependency. I bet a lot of people that will have VBS2 will also have the conditions you have, but some with VBS2 won&#39;t have such possibility in the future.




anyway...  if you reread the "stuff" i wrote, it was referring to the terrain it self. (what you See, Not what you use)

[shinRaiden]

@<hidden>:

My only comment is one is not better than the other, they&#39;re just different.

Regarding graphics, we figured out pretty early on that there were two main drawbacks to adding normal and specular maps:

* - Increased system requirements
* - Increased development time

The only immediate benefit is that objects so modeled look prettier.

If customers require that, then of course it can be contracted. However, when VBS2 was launched, similar to the ArmA discussions here, many military customers had to run VBS2 on VBS1 spec hardware for some time, and immediate system upgrades were not an option.

Secondly, various applications of VBS2, such as the aircrewmen trainer, use lower-fidelity system components. For example, the emagin z800 headsets seen in the AVRS media have a published spec of 800x600. They are effective in their use, but normal and specular maps would be completely wasted in those contexts.

As for scripting, yes it&#39;s true that ArmA content may in various cases have more intricate scripted systems for individual content items than VBS2 variants, eg the RKSL announcements for example. However, that&#39;s based on a different design approach taken by the different designers. BIS in OFP and ArmA tends to put their scripted systems into scenarios. Community addon makers implement content-specific systems. BIA prefers to implement integrated backend systems like a tightly managed super-mod. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, one&#39;s not &#39;better&#39; than the other, just different.

Of course you might see something that might be prettier or might have more features in ArmA as opposed to VBS2. That doesn&#39;t mean however that the VBS2 customers aren&#39;t getting a fair contract, or that they&#39;re not satisfied with what&#39;s been delivered.

For me, the nerd I am, tbh I could care less about more shiny. When someone points at a screen and says


Quote[/b] ]That helo you see in VBS2 with everyone in it? AVCATT&#39;s flying that, not VBS2

That to me is awesome. Or when VBS2 creates a new capability, like being able to turn actual incident reports into instructional content within 96 hours of the actual incident, that to me is epic. (Link here (http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/TNSarchives/January%202009/010509-1.html))

[Soul_Assassin]

You guys must think im freakin blind or somethin http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif why keep repeating the same thing? pretty graphics not needed for the purpose of VBS2? fine I get it...that is why pretty graphics are not utilized. All you guys are doing just backing up my point and adding sorry excuses for it.

Im done with this. Please stop addressing me in thread we keep on repeating the same thing for 3 pages already.

[DM]

Along the years they have spoken and talked about their ambitions, their developments and plans for the future, and what i said was based on that, because normally they say what they pretend to do in pre-hand, and nothing was mentioned.
That kinda technology was already spoken and mentioned in the past.
Well yes, thats usually how it happens. But I can assure you that advancements have been made. Theres enough documentation, not to mention the product its self as proof to that.


So, please, don&#39;t corrupt things again, as you use to do occasionally.
Heh, I like that I have a reputation as "the corruptor" (er?) http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rofl.gif





Without the so called eye candy, the military personal will train under a program that completely ignores the feeling it can generate to the human mind.
Having had the chance to try loadmaster (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=IyHg0Asez5I) and the Sniper Trainer (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=BBUWQhr1kFA) first hand, I can say that it sucks you in completely, even with the "poor models" and "ugly terrain". Have you had chance to try similar things yourself to be able to make such statements?
Unfortunately i hadn&#39;t such luck, but i don&#39;t really mind.
We all know, for years, that you are a great privileged. Im glad that you have the possibility to try out in first hand, and happy that you shared such information.
I&#39;m also glad that you can have such equipment at home so you can train without any dependency. I bet a lot of people that will have VBS2 will also have the conditions you have, but some with VBS2 won&#39;t have such possibility in the future.
I certainly dont have it at home&#33; Dont have the space for a full sized mock-up of a UH-60&#33;

I do think that you are thinking "inside the box" and thinking about VBS too much like ArmA. Yes there are some "Serious Gamers" who have VBS and use it very much like ArmA, but the scenario changes once you start talking about VBS when deployed with real military units. You just have to read the quotes from the various reports as to how the users get sucked in, regardless of the models, textures or terrain. Once you&#39;re focussed on your task how pretty things look tends to go out the window. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif


anyway...  if you reread the "stuff" i wrote, it was referring to the terrain it self. (what you See, Not what you use)
And so was I, AVRS and the Sniper Trainer are just two examples of using VBS. You&#39;re still in the same terrain, using the same models and maps. They are "just" keyboard/mouse replacements.

@<hidden>

I&#39;m still not sure how you think your original comments were any more relevant/better than the ongoing discussion. Which is why people keep bringing it up.

And your original "point" was that the ArmA community makes better content than what is included in VBS2. And that BIA were wasting their money on content development. Which in both cases is not true. Hence the points being made to counter that statement. (There is a LOT more to content "quality" than just looking pretty...)

[Pathy]

Soul Assassin, there is nothing substandard about UKF&#39;s work, but if you think they don&#39;t meet ArmA standard then perhaps we ought to bin it all and not release anything, so we can wait on your own high quality UK addons....

Yeah, thought not....

[Spooky Lynx]

Emm... What is SDF and what side utilises BRDM-2 and Su-17 in this version of VBS?

[Max Power]

Empty threats are so tiresome and boring.

[VXR]

Emm... What is SDF and what side utilises BRDM-2 and Su-17 in this version of VBS?
SDF..

I think it is:

-Singapore Defence Forces
or
-Sweden Defence Forces http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[mr.g-c]

Probably Singapore, because east-timor like mentioned is relative "near" to it...

Anyway, can&#39;t understand the discussion... i think the showed VBS2 Vehicles and stuff looking pretty good even without those fancy texture shading....
Textures (ok desert sand-color ones are a bit "boring" or more extensive wheatering is missing) are looking very good IMHO...

And the Islands are simply amazing.... i mean guys look at our ugly sahrani (especially North Sahrani - South is way better) compared to those... Sahrani look really artificial... the textures from Sahrani (Sateelitempa aswell as close-distant textures) compared to those VBS2 screen are really a joke...

Can&#39;t all dedicated Island-creators of Arma stick together and make some 1000 sqKM and bigger Island?
I mean we see tons of Afghanistan/Iraq maps already released or in the make, but they are all so tiny....
And Sahrani is way to tiny too, for some real-life like game with support, artiller, whatever....

[Cozza]

but there are Swedish units in some of the pics  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge2.gif

swedish troops (http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/images/stories/ukjan09/1680x1050_VBS2_119.jpg)

[Serclaes]

Probably Singapore, because east-timor like mentioned is relative "near" to it...
Actually, Australia is much closer to it than Singapore. And i guess it is for the ADF since they were there for a UN peacekeeping(?) mission.

[Pathetic_Berserker]

yes it was a UN peacekeeping mission. Australia was asked because of its proximity.



I read the thread, but not realy sure why. The little flame war was terribly circular.

Just a theory but ther may also be another issue in play here. There is a thinking amongst many in military circles and particlarly law enforment that a sense of the &#39;ultra real&#39; in a simulator is not neccessarily a good thing. They don&#39;t want thier folks exposed to a repeated experience of total emersion (helped with lashings of eye candy)in what could be a fake death. Something about desensitizing emotional resposes during critical decision making moments. That control over the level of emersion may be a difficult thing when you understand the toys these boys are using to play on it.
So VBS instead turns its resources to more practicle &#39;realities&#39; such as exacting variants of vehicles and real world terrain data. A more detaied penetration system and mission editing on the fly. Because its all about simulating proceedure. Learning about what to do under certain situations and the consequenses of doing the wrong thing.

At any rate I think the pics look Ok. In fact they kind of make me think that the normal maps and, inparticlar the specular maps, are layed on a bit think in Arma to the detriment of &#39;reality&#39;.

[Spooky Lynx]

There&#39;s very nice Su-17M4 on the screenshots. But it has one noticeable bug... Pylons which are only for R-60 anti-air misiles are used for carrying bombs.

[W0lle]

Empty threats are so tiresome and boring.
Would you stop spamming the forums? May I remember you that you&#39;re on probation after your WL removal. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

SDF = Swedish Defense Forces most probably.

BRDM and Su-17 are used by "Generic OPFOR".
As for the Su-17 Pylons... I guess it doesn&#39;t matter as like said they are used as OPFOR vehicles where details and 100% realism doesn&#39;t matter. But good eyes you have, right now none of us noticed that.  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

[Spooky Lynx]

One more question. How much does full VBS2 package with all available to non-military customers modules cost?

[Namikaze]

One more question. How much does full VBS2 package with all available to non-military customers modules cost?
You would need to contact sales@<hidden> to get that information.

[W0lle]

One more question. How much does full VBS2 package with all available to non-military customers modules cost?
It should be added that there are no modules or addons anymore. You purchase the whole package, addional units, vehicles etc. are provided by for free via patches.

No discussion about the pricetag here.

[Jakerod]

Gnat @<hidden> Jan. 10 2009,12:05)]The second picture, is that vehicle on fire (different ... "partial" fire effect) or has it simply parked on a camp fire ?&#33;
The front right wheel is just on top of a camp fire  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
I don&#39;t know about that. In this picture: Picture (http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/images/stories/jan2009/1680x1050_VBS2_045.jpg) you can see a bit more clearly that the wheel is supposed to be on fire.

[NoRailgunner]

This looks more like a placed "fire lit" object. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

[Maddmatt]

Gnat @<hidden> Jan. 10 2009,12:05)]The second picture, is that vehicle on fire (different ... "partial" fire effect) or has it simply parked on a camp fire ?&#33;
The front right wheel is just on top of a camp fire  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
I don&#39;t know about that. In this picture: Picture (http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/images/stories/jan2009/1680x1050_VBS2_045.jpg) you can see a bit more clearly that the wheel is supposed to be on fire.
And you can also quite clearly see that there is a fireplace under the wheel, partly hidden by some kind of conveniently placed mound of sand (part of a new fireplace object maybe).

I can spot that old campfire effect a mile away http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

I suppose they tried to make it look like a small landmine went off under the wheel.

[Jakerod]

Gnat @<hidden> Jan. 10 2009,12:05)]The second picture, is that vehicle on fire (different ... "partial" fire effect) or has it simply parked on a camp fire ?&#33;
The front right wheel is just on top of a camp fire  http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif
I don&#39;t know about that. In this picture: Picture (http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/images/stories/jan2009/1680x1050_VBS2_045.jpg) you can see a bit more clearly that the wheel is supposed to be on fire.
And you can also quite clearly see that there is a fireplace under the wheel, partly hidden by some kind of conveniently placed mound of sand (part of a new fireplace object maybe).

I can spot that old campfire effect a mile away http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

I suppose they tried to make it look like a small landmine went off under the wheel.
It appears though that it is supposed to be an effect. I was saying that in the BRDM picture that I don&#39;t think it was supposed to be a camp fire but that the vehicle was supposed to be on fire. It maybe an actual campfire but it is supposed to represent the vehicle being disabled not a vehicle driving over a campfire. I should&#39;ve made that more clear.

[jamie_c]

Hey guys,

Let me introduce myself, I use VBS2 in a professional and a "gaming" capacity. I work in a centre that is capable of serving over 100 soldiers in a single scenario at any one time. I also have a very good knowledge of how far we can push our PCs under such load, and being a professional soldier for quite some time understand, even at the lowest level what matters and what doesn&#39;t. A lot of you gamers are being highly critical of VBS without having touched it, or been in a position to understand where the military customer really doesn&#39;t care about eye candy. Someone posted that military vehicles may be dull and relatively don&#39;t need specular maps as much, correct. Is it important that a soldier can see rivets in his land rover from a normal map? not at all.

What is important for us is the After-Action Review, the ability to interop with other simulations and be able to run VBS2 on what are barely mid-range standards by todays specs. Anyone who claims these features aren&#39;t vital are missing the mark, especially when they favour specular and normal maps over them.

Jamie.

[Dogstar]

AAR is also probally my favorite feature as well as the IEDs when playing redcell opfor teams. When your playing the simulation, i dont think you ever get bothered by lack of normal maps or specular maps. There are more terrains than there are missions atm, and the biggest difference between arma and vbs2 is the size of the community for the non mil players.

[OChristie]

To understand the full potential of VBS2 you will most proberley have to use it in a professional enviroment, such as Jamie&#39;s.
VBS2 is a purely professional product released to the General Public. Its ability&#39;s cannot be fully used in my opinion unless used in a professional enviroment. Each product has its purpose and Virtual Battlespace 2&#39;s purpose is to train soldier&#39;s in various techniques. Although it uses the same (heavily modified) engine as ArmA, its aim and purpose is completely different. I speak from personal experiece as I own VBS2, it is an amazing product, but, to a member of the public (non-mill) its use does not expand farther than a better more complete version of ArmA with alot more realistic content and terrains.

The screenshots look extremely good and the features of VBS2 that are included in the core product massivly outway the fuctionality of ArmA.

Ollie