Explanation on driving changes in 1.7 from Devs Q&A

[u/linecraftman]

The devs have said that the driving changes were necessary because the old system couldnt be upgraded and limiting them from fixing stuff like sliding vehicles on handbrake, implementing Ackermann steering geometry and more.

The current system is initial implementation that will improve over time

https://youtu.be/oshRVMI9ds8

[u/-Bostonian]

This is what I think so many people playing Reforger do not understand, in many cases the changes coming from BI are not simple tweaks to the existing system, it's a full rebuild that will still need to be dialed in over time but will offer more options down the road. They are literally building out the engine the game is running on as they go because there were so many engine limitations for Arma 3 that they decided a new in-house engine was the best decision going forward with their games. Chill a little while they do that.

[u/Boss-Think → u/-Bostonian]

This maybe so, but they need to convey this properly.

[u/gandrbus → u/-Bostonian]

They are literally building out the engine

Work on the Enfusion engine began in 2014 with first (hybrid) Dayz implementation in 2017 and Reforger in 2022. The fact that they don't have their own engine sorted out 12 years in is not a reason to chill. On the contrary. Arma 4 is a year away ffs. It should be rock solid by now.

[u/MikeyBoyT → u/gandrbus]

Game engines are really complex things. They take a long time to get right and an engines development never really ends.

The fact they've made changes are a core level is a good thing, it having an affect on current game systems is a shame but it is what it is at the end of the day. Its the cost of making complex systems that work well and allow for easier changes over making complex systems that don't work well and dont allow for easier changes.

I've been learning Godot for a couple of months as my first engine, and theres some shit missing and poor implementation in that, that has been changed apparently that initially people weren't happy about but now see the utility.

[u/gandrbus → u/MikeyBoyT]

Game engines are really complex things. They take a long time to get right and an engines development never really ends.

True.

Its the cost of making complex systems that work well and allow for easier changes over making complex systems that don't work well and dont allow for easier changes.

Given the 1.6 and 1.7 updates and the 7 months in between them, are you under the impression that Enfusion as it is today works well and allows for easy changes? If BI cant get the 1.6 performance issues under control in 7 months (or make Reforger stable in general, ever) for a smaller scale project do you think they will get it under control in a year for A4 thats going to be way bigger?

[u/MikeyBoyT → u/gandrbus]

I think enfusion works well in some ways and in others not, I would assume that BI do not see it as feature complete or at the least in need of core changes.

It is clear to everyone that 1.6 was a step too far, prior to 1.6 they were making small changes frequently, 1.6 came after a change to that where they wanted to make bigger updates over a longer period. I dont think thats neither good nor bad, just a different approach. One of the core issues is a lack of internal and external testing (experimental (PlayStation not having access is part of that issue)).

If more players could and would play experimental then we may see better updates, but thats not a great excuse, internal testing is where BI needs a stronger approach. We all know Arma games often have a troubled development and is relatively slow compared to other games from other studios.

Part of the greater issue is that reforger is the first full game in the Enfusion Engine where the engine informs the games capabilities and the game informs the engines capabilities. While the game is not a test bed (which was stayed very early on when redorger came to early access btw) it essentially is nonetheless in that it is informing Enfusion and also Arma 4, especially in the eyes of the majority of players despite what the devs say.

I think in the next 7 months on the lead up to Arma 4, we will see improvements, a lot of the core issues with the game have been there for a long time, not just from recent updates, these issues are complex and take time to get in order, changing code often has a nock on affect on other systems so its like a dog chasing its tail, change one thing another thing breaks and depending on how the code is written it can be extremely hard to nail down what breaks.

There would be thousands and thousands of lines of code to go through, to tweak and test internal and change and tweak and test again. And consider that much of the dev team are now working on arma 4, they may have people working on redorger who did not write the code that needs attending to, so it may be they have to search for it or have the previous dev there to sift through with the current one to find the issues.

Some believe the devs dont care about the game, I've spoken with a couple devs here and there over the years, including klamacz, and I feel certain that they care a lot about this game and wanting it to work well for everyone. Its just a difficult job simply.

Arma 4 will still have problems, no doubt there, but it will work well, that might be a year from release or several, but it will. Arma 3 is a testament to how years of chipping away at a game yields a good product.

If we stick with reforger, we leave feedback, support the fevs in their work, we will get the product we expect and want in time. Game dev is fucking hard, code is fucking confusing as fuck (at least for me hahaha).

[u/gandrbus → u/MikeyBoyT]

If more players could and would play experimental then we may see better updates, but thats not a great excuse(...)

Thats no excuse at all. I mean, yeah - in regard to intertia, driving physics, gamemode changes - the surface stuff - yes. Experimental is exactly for that. But they advertise the product as functioning. There should no be no guilt tripping of "we cant make a decent update that doesnt make the game unplayable because players dont play experimental". Its not the players job. They could somehow incentivize it - by doing events of some sort for example - but they choose not to. Experimental is low pop and therefore boring and there is zero reason to play it over stable.

Part of the greater issue is that reforger is the first full game in the Enfusion Engine where the engine informs the games capabilities and the game informs the engines capabilities.

This part is almost fair. It would be fair if it wasnt BIs own engine.

While the game is not a test bed (which was stayed very early on when redorger came to early access btw) it essentially is nonetheless in that it is informing Enfusion and also Arma 4, especially in the eyes of the majority of players despite what the devs say.

Its a product advertised and sold as functioning. And its not for a relatively big part of the playerbase. Keep in mind its two and a half years since release.

I think in the next 7 months on the lead up to Arma 4, we will see improvements, a lot of the core issues with the game have been there for a long time, not just from recent updates, these issues are complex and take time to get in order, changing code often has a nock on affect on other systems so its like a dog chasing its tail, change one thing another thing breaks and depending on how the code is written it can be extremely hard to nail down what breaks.

This is called "technical debt" and ability to not accumulate it (or to accumulate it in a controlled manner to be more specific) is a measure of competence for devs of any studio. And as per the "we will see improvements", I doubt any changes they make will make the stability or performance more than barely passable, if that.

There would be thousands and thousands of lines of code to go through, to tweak and test internal and change and tweak and test again.

This is true. And thats the job.

And consider that much of the dev team are now working on arma 4, they may have people working on redorger who did not write the code that needs attending to, so it may be they have to search for it or have the previous dev there to sift through with the current one to find the issues.

Code is generally expected to be written and commented on in a way that the next person who looks at it can understand it quickly. Again - competence. And again - their own engine.

Some believe the devs dont care about the game, I've spoken with a couple devs here and there over the years, including klamacz, and I feel certain that they care a lot about this game and wanting it to work well for everyone. Its just a difficult job simply.

Individual devs are not the problem. They are all talented individuals and I have no doubt that everyone cares a fuckton.

Arma 4 will still have problems, no doubt there, but it will work well, that might be a year from release or several, but it will. Arma 3 is a testament to how years of chipping away at a game yields a good product.

Arma 4 will definitely have problems - the question is how big are they going to be - and looking at the development of Reforger I worry the problems are going to be big. Arma 3 while barebones and with its own problems was a functional product when 1.0 released.

If we stick with reforger, we leave feedback, support the fevs in their work, we will get the product we expect and want in time.

I very much doubt it. Arma 4 is give or take a year away (unless delayed). Reforger gets main update roughly every 6 months. Thats two/three updates left until A4. With the track record up until now I doubt three updates are enough time to get the game into any better shape other than passable and even that is a maybe. And that's assuming the Reforger team doesn't shrink even more as the release of "the breadwinner" approaches. And when A4 drops? Unless A4 is going to be PC only, Reforger is going to be left with absolute skeleton crew and life support to fizzle out never being stable in its lifetime.

[u/mikpyt]

The truth about sliding vehicles is that the entire on-rails feeling is most likely caused by changes introduced by attempts to stop vehicles sliding down from slopes. How do I know? Because we found excessive tire friction in 1.7 in workbench, and after recalibrating it everything is mostly back to normal. Try it:

https://reforger.armaplatform.com/workshop/6986173293D3A342-GatorsVehicleFix

Core rewrite? Probably worth it, we'll see. Getting rid of sliding, at the cost of on-rails driving? Absolutely not worth it and needs to go.

[u/Roughbeggar]

This is the biggest problem with both 1.6 and 1.7. They roll out a bunch of potential good ideas that are way too half baked and untested. It’s crazy to me that they put out this update without addressing the long list of problems introduced in 1.6 first.

Wish they would just roll back to 1.4 at this point

[u/linecraftman → u/Roughbeggar]

they also said that a rollback is a waste of time and resources and they have to keep pushing technology even if its not perfect at first

[u/kmcconway849 → u/Roughbeggar]

Most people excuse ti this is "play experimental", to that I say balls, it is good at stress testing the game but alot of the bugs from 1.6/1.7 seem very obvious (Insert image of the HMMWVs front wheels here)and makes me feel like BI would rather push a broken update rather than fixing the bugs

[u/khreeeeew]

Hot take but I like the new driving system.

[u/Sahnex3 → u/khreeeeew]

That is indeed a hot take. 😃

[u/SkloTheNoob → u/khreeeeew]

For the most part it is good. However it needs to be tweaked quite alot and probably shouldn't be released in that state. Try to drive the vans and tell me it is alright.

[u/IamDirtyHippie → u/SkloTheNoob]

Arma reforger is literally a play test

[u/InformalYesterday760 → u/IamDirtyHippie]

The Q&A today seems to disagree with this framing. Around 47 mins in:

"We always wanted Reforger to be a game. It's not a test app, it's not a test bed. It's not a prototype of anything else. It's a game on its own. We wanted it to be a worth [unsure of word, maybe means worthy or worthwhile] continuation of Arma series. Something which Arma 3 people, people which played Arma 3 and love it, would enjoy because we made the performance better, because it looks better, ...."

[u/gandrbus → u/IamDirtyHippie]

We need a sticky post on the main page quoting klamacz when he said that Reforger is not, in fact, a test.

EDIT: https://imgur.com/a/VnCgicD, may 2024.

[u/p4nnus → u/gandrbus]

Yeah, and also repeating that now in the latest QA referenced here. Around 47 mins in like someone already said.

[u/p4nnus → u/IamDirtyHippie]

What did the lead developer of the game say in the latest QA, referenced in this post, at around 47min in?

[u/SkloTheNoob → u/IamDirtyHippie]

I can not argue against this statement

[u/ConsciousScar3094 → u/khreeeeew]

Me to yes it has its wtf moments but far better than the old one

[u/RustyFork97 → u/khreeeeew]

the truck and humvee never felt better to drive. especially on hard terrain

[u/Rubix3346]

I think that once people get used to it being different they’ll hate it less. Plus, as it’s only just now being implemented it will improve over time and become superior to the old system.

[u/TheSyrupCompany]

Not gonna lie I hated it for a day and then got used to it and now it's fine

[u/Bearded_Aussie_Nate]

It’s almost like this game is a test bed for arma 4

[u/Chemical_Suit]

I don’t find driving that bad. I feel like I can do a good job driving onroad and off road I have a tendency to hit small rocks at speed.

[u/Just_-J]

For the most i’d say its positive but it needs a lot of tweaking