Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
.kju

A solution to the A2/BI content in A3 and your thoughts

Recommended Posts

I believe that with full BI support, the team would be able to do a pack that would be full-working under A3, so no files that mess up with the others.

About the distribution, I think the best idea is as said: full Steam DLC for owners and lite for non ( if someone wants the full quality, will have to buy/have A2/OA/CO, which is good for BI ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
;2493443']#######################################

Distribution part

---

Here the core is to distribute an CO lite as free DLC for A3 for everyone in Steam' date=' next to AiA/A3 Rearmed.

People that already own A2/OA/CO could just load this along instead to get high quality textures and sounds.

Such is [b']essentially [/b]to keep an unified base for multiplayer.

The A2/OA models updated by community, and other assets, would be another free DLC available in Steam.

Thus the whole integration, update and play experience would be easy and unified.

Perfect idea for implementation, would make public (vanilla) servers feel a little bit more "varied" in choice of the vehicles used for Players & AI, at the mission developers' discretion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a +1 from me, but it is very ambitious.

Same here, and I don't think it will really happen.

If it does, I would be very happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope this happens. I'd love myself some proper technicals and light vehicles, not to even mention all the guns. I'm not sure how something like changing the gun models is possible though to allow the attachments (As in how not having old scopes in the way will work). I guess you need to republish all the stuff which means lots of legal stuff. Maybe allow registering of all Arma copies on Steam (so people with non-steam Arms 2 aren't screwed over) and then create a free DLC that loads in Arma2 files if you have the game on steam, but replaces models where needed (to allow attachments and so) and a lite version for people that dont have it. Think lower textures, no missions and don't add the units to the editor (yes, I know you can work around that by manually adding class names)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it. Besides, it'd be cool to see Arma 2 vehicles fixed up for Arma 3, not just ported in, with PhysX and and all kinds of nice things. Men as well, since people are so grumbly about the future setting.

Also, what about the community creating entirely new content and BI maybe polishing it, if it fits with the storyline and all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really hope this happens. I'd love myself some proper technicals and light vehicles, not to even mention all the guns.
Ehhh, we do have a technical... sure, we could have more variety thereof, but I'm not getting where you're thinking "proper technicals" as if it's somehow not one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ehhh, we do have a technical... sure, we could have more variety thereof, but I'm not getting where you're thinking "proper technicals" as if it's somehow not one.

The armed offroad we have doesn't have all the same options as the normal offroad. Also in ArmA 2 we had RPG, HMG, GMG versions of offroads, Land Rovers, SOVs, SUVs, Jackals, HMMWVs and Uparmored HMMWVs and the like.

Here we have one specific offroad with one specific gun. :) Hunter's/Ifrits are just too big to count as a technical. Striders are just too fun to put in harms way, they are reserved for taking off sweet jumps and racing Hatchback Sports off road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-1 "content crisis" crude

-1 "joining the lemmings"

+1 "stay in ArmA2" if you want 110% of community content

+1 "wait a little longer for BIS to finish"

+1 "Good idea"

---IF ... a big IF

----- BIS hands over the good quality models

----- Players DONT have to own all prior material

----- A good team rebuild the content, quality is important

----- Its NOT a 2 year wait for a 1 time release

----- Its released in a slowly growing pack

Happy with BIS doing this themselves, later, and making it DLC I buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ metalcraze

The system to require A2/CO install for the HQ textures and sounds is the only way feasible.

Otherwise BI would have to develop a system that non A2/OA steam keys could be converted to such.

The bridge is a necessity or the whole lite vs HQ idea would not work at all.

If BI would find a way to allow people to register their no steam A2/OA key as a steam product,

it would make things easier in various regards (preferred outcome).

The upgraded models (and other data) will be part of AiA/A3 Rearmed available as a separate DLC as described in the first post.

@ Myke

A quicker, limited source model release does not rule out a later full public release.

Obviously I am for the later, yet the upgrade work will take time, so there is no time to loose.

In the end this depends on BI position anyway.

@ lodulodu

The whole upgrade content would be an iterative, step-by-step, long term process.

In other words frequent, continuous updates when a given unit/vehicle/weapon was completed.

Overall I think people should not have too extreme expectations here.

The main goal would be to upgrade the content functionality/feature wise.

Stuff like PhysX, the TKOH FM or optimization is complex and takes a lot of effort.

I think it is unrealistic to expect such lowl level improvements on a broad scale.

A modder might be up for his preferred toy, yet for anything else full time payed work is a necessity.

While unrelated: In terms of optimization personally I would just cut the highest Resolution LOD,

or have a video option to allow users such adjustments. Past tests have shown significant performance gain by such.

@ columdrum

There is no other feasible nor meaningful way other than all or nothing.

Same base for MP and addon dependencies should be enough to understand that.

If you run AiA properly, there is no UI mess-up. So that must be a problem on your end.

In terms of configs obviously the A3 team should have tagged all their new classes, and not changed inheritance for existing classes.

Yet this is only something they can sort out. The only alternative I can see would be the ability to blacklist specific configs not getting loaded.

New pbos is not an option. The way it works is that upgraded models and such will be in new containers/pbos part of AiA/A3 Rearmed and the path referenced to these set in configs. Symlink is way too low level to be feasible for this.

Here a basic overview to get the idea:

  • .\Arma3\addons - core A3 game
  • .\Arma3\COLite - all BI A2/OA pbo with low quality textures and sounds (except missions and campaigns)
  • .\Arma3\Rearmed\Core - merges A2/OA with A3 at a basic level
  • .\Arma3\Rearmed\Upgrade - updated A2/OA models and such to support A3 tech and features
  • .\Arma2 - optional: high quality textures and sounds for A2 content
  • .\Arrowhead - optional: high quality textures and sounds for OA content

The game itself determines the location of all these and handles the correct loading order and merging of the content.

One can still play pure A3. At the same time the merge will not affect A3 content or missions in any way either.

Edited by .kju [PvPscene]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems like a realistic solution. You have my vote, kju.

...now you had a chance to pay 2x less, and take a part in alpha, and get final version for fucking free!

No, we paid a reduced rate for the final release, with the added benefit of access to the alpha and beta stages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ehhh, we do have a technical... sure, we could have more variety thereof, but I'm not getting where you're thinking "proper technicals" as if it's somehow not one.

Proper wasn't the right word there. I do think it's a proper technical.. It's just a single one with an M2 is all. As Kylania said, Arma 2 had some much more variety when it came to that. The main problem with the lack of technical is that balancing is a bitch. I played sector control all day yesterday, but on most maps it was really just thermal vs thermal. I'm just not a fan of thermal vehicles in TvT scenarios.

Anyway, I'm glad someone like .kju made this topic, because his posts are usually written down excellent plus he's the guy behind AiA so probably has the most insight on it right now.

Anyway: I really don't care for physics at the start and most weapons don't even need attachments (Weapons like the M8 serie are fine, but I wouldn't mind them on Mk16, Mk17 en M16s and so). Not expecting crazy animations / gearboxes and physics for vehicles either. I don't even mind if the quality is lower (When it adds to performance)

I guess how I like to see it we're also a bit dependant on things working for Steam though.

First it needs to be possible for all non-steam copies to be registered on Steam (I only have OA myself on Steam and Arma 2 retail and even though I don't mind rebuying Arma 2, I'm sure it'll cause quite the shitstorm if you can't activate it on Steam).

Then it needs to be combined operations only and no DLC supported, for optimal compatibility.

If possible Steam could check if you have Arma2(+OA) and then give you a free 'DLC' that basically does what .Kju is trying to achieve with AiA (If you ask me they can also make it a relatively inexpansive DLC, with the money going towards the modders).

If Arma2 is installed it just links the files. If Arma2 isn't installed it downloads the neccesary files (No UI and so). If a person doesn't have Arma 2 it'll download a lite package instead.

I guess that way you'll have a lot of extra sales for Arma 3 (One of the main reasons people don't want to step over to Arma 3 is the lack of the popular Arma 2 content I think). You'll have extra sales for Arma 2 (People wanting Arma 2 missions and decent quality sounds+textures) and you'll give the guys working on it some money as well. It would suddenly increase the Arma 3 content by a huge load, adding weapons, maps, vehicles, you name it. (A modular build up would be good too. First maps, then weapons, then ground vehicles, then air vehicles).

Man, I really hope this happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gnat;2494043']-1 "content crisis" crude

-1 "joining the lemmings"

+1 "stay in ArmA2" if you want 110% of community content

+1 "wait a little longer for BIS to finish"

+1 "Good idea"

---IF ... a big IF

----- BIS hands over the good quality models

----- Players DONT have to own all prior material

----- A good team rebuild the content' date=' quality is important[/b']

----- Its NOT a 2 year wait for a 1 time release

----- Its released in a slowly growing pack

Happy with BIS doing this themselves, later, and making it DLC I buy.

+1. I know it would take a lot more time, but let's be honest, vanilla A2 content is poor quality compared to A3. OA is better (especially panda's bradley), but not all of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
;2494186']

@ columdrum

If you run AiA properly' date=' there is no UI mess-up. So that must be a problem on your end.

In terms of configs obviously the A3 team should have tagged all their new classes, and not changed inheritance for existing classes.

Yet this is only something they can sort out. The only alternative I can see would be the ability to blacklist specific configs not getting loaded.

New pbos is not an option. The way it works is that upgraded models and such will be in new containers/pbos part of AiA/A3 Rearmed and the path referenced to these set in configs. Symlink is way too low level to be feasible for this.

[/quote']

I never said i had UI problems, just that there are some A2 pbos that would be better not to load since they redefine classes that also exist on A3 and changes inheritance as you said. And i personally don't trust arma enough to have all that config overwriting(Updating base class and that shit as you know), it may just work perfectly... but you have been around long enough to know that you can expect anything weird from it :D

I totally understand your approach and ,i guess it may be the only option, i just said i didn't personally like it much. And i would prefer that that new folders included new pbos, with correct configs, and not needing to load the whole A2/addons && A2/expansion/addons dirs. But i guess that would be a legal mess and a waste of current AiA config work.

The important thing it's to get some kind of backwards compatibility so all the work done by the modding comunity for A2 could be used on A3( Not that it's a better option play A2 content on A3 , since A3 MP is fubar right now, but that's another topic :P).

Edited by columdrum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The important thing it's to get some kind of backwards compatibility so all the work done by the modding comunity for A2 could be used on A3( Not that it's a better option play A2 content on A3 , since A3 MP is fubar right now, but that's another topic :P).

I would say that is secondary, and you can't have it all. If a2 3rd party content is important, it can be ported forward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know it would take a lot more time, but let's be honest, vanilla A2 content is poor quality compared to A3. OA is better (especially panda's bradley), but not all of it.

Agree, as Kju was thinking to develop them one by one, IMO they should give more priority to the ones that have better quality and then improve the ones that have less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say that is secondary, and you can't have it all. If a2 3rd party content is important, it can be ported forward

I was refering to missions and islands mostly, you can't port a island if you used A2/OA content since that content just doesn't exist on A3. Obviously all the units, weapons and vehicles can be ported to A3 "easily"( we don't have tools yet, nor news about them :p).

Argg, seems like i am always whining about something in this thread. Just wanna say that i am sure that you have all the support from the comunity to go ahead Kju :rthumb:

Edited by columdrum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ PuFu

For most players function is more important than visuals. It is understandable that you see it different as an artist.

Still the whole idea of this is to have all A2/OA content available in A3. Backwards compatibility is the key element in this whole affair.

@ columdrum

AiA is limited by BI's general policy not allowing to repack their data.

If permitted, some config mess (mainly from UI.pbo and anims.pbos) could be avoided.

Depending on what BI would see a feasible approach for this project, more can be done.

@ MistyRonin

If, when and what model/content would get upgraded would be mostly down to the people participating in the effort.

One can make a general plan what would be desirable, yet for a non paid project you cannot have such expectations.

Probably weapon attachments, muzzle flashes, 3d scopes, uniforms for infantry would be things to start with.

---

It doesn't seem possible to add a poll afterwards. Maybe moderators can?

What should be the options to vote on anyway?

Edited by .kju [PvPscene]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for this. I wonder if something like a kickstarter campaign could be started to help persuade BI even more and get this started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't seem possible to add a poll afterwards. Maybe moderators can?

What should be the options to vote on anyway?

Yes we can. Please contact a Moderator of your choice with the desired Poll categories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd definitely enjoy not having to run aia to get everything into a3. my thumbs up to this idea, and a thump on your back for stepping up to such a large task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
;2494491']It doesn't seem possible to add a poll afterwards. Maybe moderators can?

What should be the options to vote on anyway?

Maybe the question should be simple: Are you agree with the idea, or not ( that way you'll know everyone who supports it ). On the other hand you may even add another option, if they are not only agree but also willing to pay a little sum for this DLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×