Bohemia Interactive please comment on whats hindering you to introduce Ponds to Arma3

According to someone on the DBO Ponds page of Armaholic, he was working on ponds, and without much success, until one of the recent patches suddenly fixed an issue with his ponds. He speculates that BIS have been secretly fixing ponds in the background of their updates. However this lead is... A theory at best.

:)

And what is the point of this? Showing that other people using a different engine have done it? So did BIS with arma 2 ;)

And what is the point of this? Showing that other people using a different engine have done it? So did BIS with arma 2 ;)

the point is, obviously, to mock BI about the fact that arma 3 lacks arma 2 features. ;)

It's a design decision, imo. A3 takes place on dry mediterranean terrains, not the place for many ponds, swamps and the like. :p

Of course ponds would be good for the modding community but BI aren't exactly obliged to design their game around modder's wishes. The practical value of ponds is also questionable. Making a sub sea level smaller lake is basically the same thing.

It's a design decision, imo. A3 takes place on dry mediterranean terrains, not the place for many ponds, swamps and the like. :p

Of course ponds would be good for the modding community but BI aren't exactly obliged to design their game around modder's wishes. The practical value of ponds is also questionable. Making a sub sea level smaller lake is basically the same thing.

Precisely. A design decision that should be used as a prime example to show how bad such a decision was. Granted, you can argue that it's no big deal now. Then you'll realize that ArmA 3 was the only game in 2015+ that never had ponds, or water besides that of sea level on release. That's something to laugh about as well. While it just now got a feature that's been around since Battlefield 2, and probably older games (#BipodsFinally), it still doesn't have ponds. This essentially is just another thing showing the age of the Engine. They fix and implement things, while other features are left behind or broken, or in his case, both.

So it's not exactly about the modders decision. When we all first heard that ponds were not planned, I'm pretty certain it's anyone's best guess that inland official terrains would lack important and various interesting land features and possibilities. There's only so much you can do to make geography interesting without water in play. You'll start to see the same thing over and over again, just in another location.

It's a design decision, imo. A3 takes place on dry mediterranean terrains, not the place for many ponds, swamps and the like. :p

Doesn't have anything to do with design. They added diving. That worked in the ocean but not in ponds. I am quite sure it was a purely practical decision, not by design, but by necessity. Since Arma 3 was off to a bad start with budget cuts, the decision was made to drop the feature. Purely economical. There is a number of places on Altis that would otherwise have water, like the dam.

I don't like it, but I can understand it. Still, I wish they would have added it back in the meantime.

While there's cases where community-made workarounds ended up being inferior to the official implementation after all, I admit that I don't see just what about M1lkm8n's "inland water" workaround is supposed to be "not good enough for official implementation" in the Expansion terrain. (I can see a case for not retroactively adding it to Altis considering how many missions might break on account of changing it at all.)

"not good enough for official implementation"

I wonder that as well. I've spent a bit of time going through the games systems and most of it flies in the face of their "must be in the engine and not scripted" mantra from a while ago.

I wish they would lay their cards on the table sometimes and just tell it like it is.

I wonder that as well. I've spent a bit of time going through the games systems and most of it flies in the face of their "must be in the engine and not scripted" mantra from a while ago.

I wish they would lay their cards on the table sometimes and just tell it like it is.

Simple answer is - they do not work properly. In many cases they did not even work properly in A2, however it was less visible than in A3. And with addition of some new features and improvements, we encountered more and more problems (AI, Dx11, physx, diving, animations, path finding,...).

You may ask, why don't we fix it. It has also simple answer - it is not impossible, but it requires manpower that is limited and we have to choose what has a priority.

About VBS - in 99% VBS solutions are not suitable for Arma, as they can afford to ignore some aspects of a game - like whole AI. And that river was more of a marketing demonstration than fully working solution.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?183119-Bohemia-Interactive-please-comment-on-whats-hindering-you-to-introduce-Ponds-to-Arma3&p=2790634#post2790634

Simple answer is - they do not work properly. In many cases they did not even work properly in A2, however it was less visible than in A3. And with addition of some new features and improvements, we encountered more and more problems (AI, Dx11, physx, diving, animations, path finding,...).

You may ask, why don't we fix it. It has also simple answer - it is not impossible, but it requires manpower that is limited and we have to choose what has a priority.

About VBS - in 99% VBS solutions are not suitable for Arma, as they can afford to ignore some aspects of a game - like whole AI. And that river was more of a marketing demonstration than fully working solution.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?183119-Bohemia-Interactive-please-comment-on-whats-hindering-you-to-introduce-Ponds-to-Arma3&p=2790634#post2790634

I've read all that guff before thanks. That wasn't what I was posting about.

What are you looking for? What was your post about?

I was replying to something Chortles mentioned.

I see.

Still good to be brought up so that more people can see it

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?183119-Bohemia-Interactive-please-comment-on-whats-hindering-you-to-introduce-Ponds-to-Arma3&p=2790634#post2790634

The whole point of my own post was asking the why-not re: a community workaround, not VBS3 -- sure there may well be reasons that a VBS3-style solution is inappropriate for Arma purposes, but then what exactly "isn't good enough" about said community workaround? (I specified M1lkm8n's since deansbeano did point out three particular caveats with his workaround when he released his.)

BI plz think about all the dry e-trees!

oh the humanity, tree huggers unite.

BI plz think about all the dry e-trees!

oh the humanity, tree huggers unite.

if your intention is to ridicule the appeal, maybe read it first :P

It's a design decision, imo. A3 takes place on dry mediterranean terrains, not the place for many ponds, swamps and the like. :p

Of course ponds would be good for the modding community but BI aren't exactly obliged to design their game around modder's wishes. The practical value of ponds is also questionable. Making a sub sea level smaller lake is basically the same thing.

Except for the fact that Altis has a swamp on it....which is filled with sea water and looks ridiculous-BI obviously were going to add ponds/lakes.Th island has several "dry" lakes and a dam!And whenever ii show someone new the island they start laughing when they see the "swamp" with it's waves and sparkling blue water.

True. They were working on it, but the more they tried improving the ponds, the more problems appeared. So hopefully, they will Iron those out at some point sooner or later, and have them back in game, maybe as a completely new Engine Feature, or otherwise.

True. They were working on it, but the more they tried improving the ponds, the more problems appeared. So hopefully, they will Iron those out at some point sooner or later, and have them back in game, maybe as a completely new Engine Feature, or otherwise.

May i ask a source for what you're saying?

May i ask a source for what you're saying?

By a Dev

At least 125.

It is an internal rule we cannot break under any circumstance. :p [JOKE!!]

Simple answer is - they do not work properly. In many cases they did not even work properly in A2, however it was less visible than in A3. And with addition of some new features and improvements, we encountered more and more problems (AI, Dx11, physx, diving, animations, path finding,...).

You may ask, why don't we fix it. It has also simple answer - it is not impossible, but it requires manpower that is limited and we have to choose what has a priority.

About VBS - in 99% VBS solutions are not suitable for Arma, as they can afford to ignore some aspects of a game - like whole AI. And that river was more of a marketing demonstration than fully working solution.

As stated, they chose other things to work on over ponds. Priority wise, i suppose it was a good choice, however, at some point, it does have to be fixed.

Seems like Ponds are working on Dev branch. Link to

Seems like Ponds are working on Dev branch. Link to

its happening :bounce3:

Keep in mind, this is a community script, not an engine feature.

Keep in mind, this is a community script, not an engine feature.

That's not a script in the above video.