Does anybody else think they should've waited for Arma 3 engine to use it?

[DiabloTigerSix]

Anyone?

I don't mean releasing it when Arma 3 does, but let's say 4 - 6 months later. For Arma 2 engine is essentialy just slightly improved Arma 1 engine (- 2005 tech) whereas Arma 3 is completely reworked from groud up.

It doesn't help this game that we're being impressive footage like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIwfS8uJJIk) on its release date. Makes one hanker for more.

[ayserjamshidi]

ArmA 1 models were easily converted to ArmA 2 models, or so I heard. If that's true, hopefully some of the modding community can convert most or all of IF to ArmA 3. Hopefully they optimize the game enough so 3/4 of the community doesn't complain more than a pregnant lady :P

[Looter]

no...

[A.fudge]

It take more than 4-6 months to develop a game.

It would be hard to develop the game on the same engine as Arma 3 if the engine isn't finished yet.

It is also very likely that BI would want alot more money for a team to use their new tech, if they would license it at all.

So far the game is great, and there is no reason if it's a success why they couldn't make a new game on the newer engine later on.

[Jedra]

If that's true, hopefully some of the modding community can convert most or all of IF to ArmA 3.

Unfortunately this would require access to the original models from Iron Front and permission from the developers and probably also the publishers.

If Iron Front sells very well, then it may be more likely that they will port their own version, but this is not likely to be for a long time.

[Wednesday 13]

Yeah, because ArmA 3 will have ragdoll physic. Definitely!

[MIK3K]

No, system requirements go up and that reduces potential sales. Maybe another version a few years after ARMA 3 has been out.

Wish they could do ragdolls like all the games that use Havok for many years now.

[FOX_11_GUY]

And If they use the ARMA 3 engine(RV4). We might have U-boats and some form of naval battles.