I took a look around at the arma3.com site and watched all video's available. These are my thoughts so far:

Pro's

• Infiltration (stealth?) options, finally!
  
• Customizable weapons: ever had that claustrophobic feeling when looking through that 10x zoom scope you started a mission with, when you're up and close in a village 15 minutes later (or vice versa)? No more of that
  
• Adaptable gear; always wanted an option screen like in good old Rainbow Six or Swat 4.
  
• Improved vehicle physics, though that's not something I deem that important for this kind of game.
  
• Even bigger environment = more sandbox to play in
  
• Anti-material rifle shooting through a motor block disables a vehicle, great!

Cons

• Changing uniforms and customizing weapons seems to go too fast to be realistic.
  
• Enemy AI doesn't seem to be improved: some moves are just plain 'shoot me' invitations.
  
• Same old command-and-control interface; I was hoping they'd finally redesign it.
  
• Same old voice and music.

Hopes

What I couldn't learn from the site but am hoping for:

• Change everything in my con list (hey, I can dream :p)
  
• Better, more exciting stealth play (stealing uniforms is great, but I hope it'll go beyond that).
  
• Anti-material rifle _really_ working as anti-material, like shooting through a wall (or just tear a chunk from it)
  
• Smoother animations (climbing a ladder never looked stiffer in Arma games).
  
• Remove high command, I never liked it; or at least don't provide any high command missions in the campaign.
  
• Don't exclude vital equipment in the original game for release in an expansion (no advanced weapon optics in Arma 2 original kinda sucked)
  
• Standalone, user friendly mission editor and language syntax (like the one in OFP: Dragon Rising).
  
• Bug free? *cough*
  
• No extra DRM measures

As it stands now this looks more like an Arma 2.5 to me than a new installment. Ok, there's a new island which may justify the version 3, but other than that there's nothing really major. Still, I'll gladly spend 50$ on what will certainly be another simulation thrill.

Any additional thoughts are welcome. Just keep it civil, but I know you will ;-)

Well that sums my thoughts up pretty much. I just hope they'll include all the bugfixes we've seen recently in Arma2, like on the AI or performance front.

Other than that, a native 64-bit exe would do arma a world of good, since then it could acces much more memory. And No game needs memory more desperately than Arma.

Frankly the modifiable weapons part is great, especially when it comes down to Planes and helicopters. Needing a seperate Aircraft for a different weapons loadout is bad. I mean coming from a Flight sim that always bugged me.

The Anti-Material Rifle being Anti-material is good, it was always kind of strange when you shot at a truck and could only disable it by shooting it's tires, never the engine. It would be good if we get a real penetration model, especially for tank combat. Also it would be really good to get something like the CITV and the IVIS for the tanks. The CiTV is just better than the CROW. I hope we'll get Night vision sights for the sniper rifles, I don't like the thermal ones to much, and I hate that the L-115A3, my favourite Rifle, doesn't has a NV-scope.

Yeah but I'm cautiously hopeful for Arma 3, even if it feels somewhat of an upgrade instead of a full new game. On the upside though, all Bohemia games have been good on the gameplay for money value.

With the gear customization ability, this is the first ArmA I've ever been interested in.

And, yes, please acknowledge that everyone now has a 64-bit OS.

I wish they would make voices quieter when in a stealth situation as creeping around but having an AI team memeber talking loadly on comms ruins the immersion. Not one game does this.

Absolutely. The only game that ever did stealth comms right was Splinter Cell and to be honest, it really didn't do it right, either.

ArmA 2's AI have used quiet voices in stealth for as long as I can remember.

I would mostly like more fluid movement for characters and a better action menu system. That was the one thing I did like about the OFP2 series was the easy command interface/menu (just too bad the AI was dumb). Also I would like to see a better lighting system as it's very simplistic and seems kinda buggy; but it's not a game-breaker.

All in all I'm pretty excited since BIS is really taking it serious and seem to be working non-stop to make sure the primary flaws from previous Arma games are fixed

Have they? Oh I'll have to go and check now lol

Hmmm, not in my ARMA2 they don't. Still talk as loud as ever.

Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising has whisper voices in stealth.

Are you ordering combat mode -> stealth?

No, didn't realise I could change the speech via that! Very rarely use the combat commands.

ArmA apologist here.

ArmA 2 CO is currently an incredibly solid game, once you learn the subtler bits of it. Some things that seem game-y when you experience them are more realistic and authentic than you might think.

Everyone hates on ArmA's UI, but no commo-rose type system can approach the fine control offered by the tiered menu system. Contact, 2,3 go prone and deliver suppressing fire on that target in the bushes, 4 crouch and watch northwest, 5,6,7,8 go combat movement and bound to that rock then engage from cover. I challenge you to find any FPS with such fine control for a leader. Voice control using something like Voice Activated Commands (VAC) makes it even sweeter. I don't want to be limited to ALL, ATTACK MY TARGET. BOAT SPOTTED. BOAT SPOTTED.

I find the addition of in-mission gear switching kind of sketchy, since if you have a 10x scoped rifle, you probably shouldn't be kicking down doors in the same ten minutes, and you'd probably cry yourself to sleep before you removed that scope and possibly wrecked your zero. Of course the limits of the game environment often make that needed, so it's a good thing all around, especially for mod makers.

The addition of a real vehicle/world physics engine and a real inverse-kinematics (ragdoll) system are the largest things IMO. This will make so much more possible -- real rope insertions, real cargo lift helicopters, proper vehicle crash and destruction simulations. IK will also make modding a million times more enjoyable, as the current 'weighting' system is frustratingly out of date and awkward to work with, especially when animating new models.

Anti-material rifles (and all weapons actually) already feature penetration and deflection, which is controlled by the material of the object, the caliber of the bullet, and the velocity. Shoot tracers from the M2 into a concrete wall and watch for the deflected shots. Alternately, line up several concrete walls in the editor and shoot through them, then look for the bullet holes through each. I was just testing this for a silly extreme penetration sniper rifle mod I was working on, shooting guys behind an IFV through the hull of the vehicle. Some sort of destruction ala BF3 but less ridiculous would be nice, but that's not in the pipeline I don't think. The engine already includes anti-material components, but sometimes it doesn't seem to be right. For example, you can definitely disable the turrets on IFVs with the .50, but for some reason I can never shoot out the engine block of the UAZ. And from modding, I know that the system for that exists inside the game already, and is implemented spottily for some vehicles. Not sure if it's just buggy or what.

ArmA already has a pretty impressive stealth simulation in my opinion. It doesn't play like Splinter Cell, because that doesn't make sense and isn't realistic anyway -- you can't just stand behind a dude for two minutes and not expect him to 'feel' you. Try it in real life. With a melee mod, I have successfully crept up behind two guards in ArmA and taken them out. The first began to turn just as I got to him, but the rifle butt to the face handled that. The crack alerted the second, but I was able to draw my pistol and kill him just as he got his rifle up and a burst off (a miss). The existing stealth is solid if you play in a cautious, tedious, realistic way. It is punishingly non-game-y.

ArmA's mission editor is brilliant and one of the most accessible ones I've ever used. Place groups of guys, a vehicle here or there, support trucks and a medical helicopter, give them waypoints, set players and playable, and boom, you have an instant mission to play by yourself on any terrain. The scripting language is forgiving and easy to learn. ArmA 3 will use Java, so that'll be even more powerful (and more familiar to some). A sophisticated sim like this is never going to be fully point-and-click for complex editing IMO.

Since the 1.6 patch the ArmA AI are highly improved. They will rarely step out into the open except when they are not aware (i.e. the mission maker has poorly configured them). Their combat movement, bounding, peeking around corners, use of suppression/grenades, etc. is all quite strong, and their rifle accuracy is pretty human -- if you can shoot them as a player, they can shoot you just as fast at that range. It's even better with some of the small tweaks done by scripts/mods like UPSMON, ACEm and ASR AI. Ask the SimHQ team, who gets flanked and mowed down by UPSMON AI week after week! I expect the ArmA 3 AI to be even more polished with the new refined movement animations. Certainly no game has comparable infantry AI on the sheer variety of terrain (from open fields to MOUT) that ArmA's AI can handle.

I am also looking forward to Render-to-Texture (confirmed in Take On Helicopters) and also underground areas (I'm hoping, since it's in VBS, and some ArmA 3 shots show hill-side entries to bases). If along with render-to-texture (MFDs), clickable cockpits are included in ArmA 3 like in Take On Helis, then you can expect some serious mid-fidelity aircraft simulations to come out of the modding community.

Bugs and all, I expect this to be brilliant.

Thanks Tao, very well expressed. I say let the whiners and bashers play BF. I will enjoy ARMA2 CO until ARMA3 is released and I will even upgrade to a 64bit OS if I have too. But I won't be happy about giving up XP 32bit.

Everyone who is interested in Arma 3 should also check out the demo for Take On Helicopters, even if you are not into the helo aspect of the game. ToH shows many of the little improvements that are coming later this year. Tao has already mentioned a few but I will mention two more - the HUD is completely customizable without resorting to mods. It has a HUD editor that shows the different UI elements as opaque boxes that you can resize and move where ever you like. They have also grouped the keybinds into infantry, helo, air and misc groups so you don't have to scroll through one long list to find the seagull controls. The whole menu system itself can be reskinned in different colors. Small things but it is an overall much nicer presentation.

I am very much looking forward to it.

The rather old now WWII tacsim H&D2 had quiet comms. You could choose whether to say it or whisper it, and you even made hand gestures for totally silent comms.
While the maps were smaller than OFP/Arma, H&D was a great WWII experience. I wish they'd made an H&D3.



The Jedi Master

Yep, one of my favorite tactical FPS's. The controls and in-game interface/gui was excellent IMO and I wish Arma would learn a thing or two from it (especially with the GUI).

H&D3 (if a true successor) would be a sure buy from me

IIRC the company was bought out, became 2K Prague, and after Mafia II were shut down.



The Jedi Master

I remember playing Swat 3 (I believe) and you would start in a stealth mode but would go to a dynamic mode upon command or upon contact with the criminal.

This is the first I've heard of this. Will we finally be getting proper foxholes and bunkers?

BTW, I'm looking forward to flying the comanche.

This is the shot I am talking about. Might be deceiving though.

Is it the RAH-66, or is it one of those "what ifs" with changes to it like we've seen in other Arma 3 shots?



The Jedi Master

No, the RAH-66 in ArmA3 is inded a "real" RAH-66 (Comanche) but of course the RAH-66 will still be a "what if" since it was canceled and never entered in service within the US Army or any other armed service.

I am wondering if they are leaving the "real" military stuff to modders or they are going to release them in DLC packs. Say BAF pack, U.S. Army pack, .....

Well, that's my hope (at least for the addon/DLC part)! Actually until NO "real" military stuff is modeled for ArmA3 I simply won't buy this game (ArmA3). It's a petty that BIS decided (IMO) to shoot themselfs on the foot like this in ArmA3 even because all the ArmA games (ArmA1 and ArmA2) were the only games that I bought and had the confidence to buy before comming out to the market (pre-order) - This of course will change with ArmA3.

IMO, BIS should change the name of ArmA3 to something like ArmA:HALO (due to it's "futuristic nature")

Yes, because I'm sure there's going to be hover tanks and lasers and space battles Amazing that you could get all this from a few screenshots lol
What don't people understand? OFP/Arma have always been an "alternate" universe where everything is NOT 100% real. I mean how many times can they recycle the same weapons/equipment over and over and over? Also most (if not all) of the weapons may not exist today; but they did at some time on paper, so it's not some kind of HALO clone on Earth.

As long as the game is balanced and has realistic ballistics/weapon handling, then it's just like the last two Arma games

yea its not exactly space ships and guys in spacesuits, its very resonable "what ifs" and set in 2020/2030 or summing if i remeber right. It also means they dont have to deal with any potential licenses by useing anything with boeing or textron involved

The Comanche was Boeing.

Just 2 were built, and while they were very capable aero-wise, who knows how the production model would've fared. Might have been more software-based avionics headaches than would be worthwhile.

I'm sure instead of Arma3 BIS could call it Arma: Future Soldier or Arma: Advanced Warfare, but then they'd have Ubisoft to fight with.



The Jedi Master

There will be no "hover tanks" and/or "laser guns" but there will be RAIL GUNS (this is confirmed for ArmA3) and other unspecified/undisclosed futuristic weaponry (who knows if "Laser Guns" will inded appear in ArmA3 afterall!) so with the presence of RAIL GUN, Hover tanks and Laser guns wouldn't be that far off!

You don't understand people like me?? Well, you don't have too! This is my oppinion and there's nothing you can do about it and nothing you can do to change it!! Yes, ArmA was always set in "alternate" universes but so far in EVERY ArmA game EVERY PIECE OF EQUIPMENT (weaponry, aircraft, vehicles, etc...) EXISTS OR EXISTED which for the FIRST TIME this WON'T BE THE CASE in ArmA3 - And that's preciselly my problem with ArmA3!

hardley futuristic when they exist now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y54aLcC3G74

quick comparsion ..

Arma3 ... http://www.arma3.com/full/wp-content/gallery/imagery/scr01.jpg

Halo ... http://www.deafgamers.com/07screenshots_a/halo3pic3.jpg

yup .. i can see how you could get confused

sure they might not be useing weapons used currently .. but who cares, no one seemed to car about the SCARS or XM8s all that much !

So don't get it. Or better yet, don't place the units you don't like in the mission you make. Or don't play missions that include them. Really, the flexibility built into the game has always been its highlight. ArmA2 had enough units in it that you could simulate really any type of warfare, from high-end high-intensity company-level battles complete with aircraft and even tactical nuclear weapons, to low-intensity squad-level counter-insurgency patrols. Different strokes for different folks, but you really can make the game the way you like it.

Most sights/mounts require zeroing when removed or placed on. Switching from a long range rifle scope to a red dot is not realistic. Even if it was, I doubt anyone carries multiple weapon sights into combat.

There is a mod that does much of the same thing from ArmA 2. Unrealistic for some stuff, yes, but it was progress. For a free mod it was great. But to see it is done the same way in ArmA 3 just seems lazily done. Another half baked feature. Instead of throwing in underwater operations (which will also be unfinished, clunky, or awkward) they should have spent more time on the weapon and character loadouts.

I have yet to see if we can loadout a unit in the mission editor with a Lock On/USAF/SWAT 4 style GUI. I hope we are not stuck using the clumsy script menu again.

Other nice features I would like in a loadout GUI would be the ability to search for weapon and ammo type (separate into different categories). Doubt we'll see something as intelligently done and slick as that in ArmA 3, but I can always dream.




How about we bring the weapons up to 2012 standards (or 1999, google Infiltration mod for Unreal Tournament) instead of adding in new ones which basically behave the same? How about they add:

- Animations, both wet/dry reloads.
- Weapon collision as in RO2 and INF (not like ArmA 1).
- 3D scopes.
- Smooth transitions from scopes to iron sights on weapons with multiple sights.
- Proper animations for holding the weapon. No more hands floating inches off the weapon touching nothing but air.
- Proper orientation of the 3D models. No more weapons clipping through the players face when moving and looking down the iron sights (crouch, move sideways while looking down the sights in the FN FAL in ArmA 2)
- Realistic reloading times. I've never tried reloading a SMAW before, but I will assume it takes more than 2 seconds. The abnormally quick reload times for weapons gives classes of soldiers unrealistic levels of effectiveness.


For vehicles:
- Better damage model.
- Make the explosions look more realistic, less vehicles instantly turning into black 3D models.
- A fire control system for the tanks.
- Better driving physics - I realize they are doing this, though I wonder how well they will turn out.

I'll take the same old M16, AK-74 and M1A2 until they make all of these changes. Then they can move onto other weapon systems.

They should work to improve what is already there otherwise each ArmA release will be little more than a content pack with the same old issues plaguing it.

"Stop liking what I don't like!" is the attitude I'm seeing here. This type of thinking -- "BIS is ruining my ultra-realistic perfectly-accurate war game and making it for Halo-playing kiddie losers" -- is pretty typical of the sim community, and certainly not one of its better traits. BIS is committed to the future setting -- no amount of whining will change that this far along in the dev cycle. Choose one: embrace it, stick with ArmA 2, or get your models and scripts together for that big "Back to Takistan" gun pack. I guarantee it will be made.

Fatty's right about customization being the strongpoint of the ArmA series. I'm looking forward to the future setting so I can hopefully get more mileage out of stock components for a Halo mod.


more random shots

That's a rail gun sniper rifle (model by ImBrokeRU, ArmA implementation by me). Spartans are on Armaholic, though I plan to remake them to be IK-ready for A3. Right at home in ArmA 3, don't you think?

While true, BIS is probably going to loose more sales over it than gain. I've downloaded many mods trying to make the game work better - tweaking AI because each patch breaks some thing with them. I already use some custom weapon packs, but the fact that I have to download even more mods to bring the game up to par isn't something I am too happy about.

In the end, we'll vote with our wallets. I probably won't pick the game up until it is in the bargain bin, and I know many others who are doing the same over the setting. When mods come out to fix the game and change the setting I'll probably buy it. Considering how bad RO2 turned out because they decided to be "creative" and focus less on authenticity I am a bit weary about ArmA 3 going a similar route. And look at RO2's player count compared to the first game, and you'll see how that turned out.

flogger = the only person whos never happy with anything !

serisoly, why all the doom and gloom?? if you dont like it dont buy it, want to change something to make it suit your style?? then pick up the modding tools and do something about it!!

That's a pretty narrow scope right there if you can't do a what-if simulation. Personally I'm sick of the yawn-inducing modern warfare setting.

That was only a test prototype which didn't show much in terms of performance (for example compared to a "same class" conventional gun).
And that is shown on the video is a NAVAL Rail gun which is meant to be mounted on destroyers or cruisers (with some "luck", on frigates as well). I believe that in 2020-2030 we could start seeing Rail guns on destroyers or cruisers but what you have in ArmA3 is Rail Guns mounted on TANKS and that I have my doubts!

But I already said that! I already said that I WON'T BUY ArmA3, unless something like an addon/mod/whatever... comes out with realistic weapons that may satisfy me (like happened in OFP/ARMA/ARMA2/ARMA2 CO).
What that post I was only replying to NoUseForAName.

Honestly I would like/prefer very much to see a conflict set in past -> Something similar to Vietnam War or some 70's (or even 80's) African conflict!

While switching optics is as you describe it, that doesn't mean that you can't have already zeroed the optic. A mount like a Larue Tactical mount will pretty much hold zero. Hell, swapping uppers isn't that big a deal, especially with more high-end units.

That said, I'm tentative on A3. I hope the modders can convert their stuff quickly, as I'd prefer "modern" over "future" but still have a better game engine. Time will tell. I've bought BIS stuff since OFP, so I'll probably eventually get sucked in. It will just be a matter of whether it's because of BIS or modders.

First, I didn't say "I don't understand people like you"; I said "What don't people understand?" (referring to others with the same concerns).
Second, yes you have a right to an opinion (and I wasn't attacking that); I was more confused with your logic. To me you're complaining about "future weapons" being unrealistic, while the Arma series has always been unrealistic in many aspects, and you overlook that, and the fact it's still a GAME!

Yes, it simulates (or tries to anyway) "real-world" combat/weapons/battlefields; but it's still far from a simulator. It seems you want realism in proven technology; but what good is a realistic-looking Apache if the flight mechanics/fire systems are anything but? What good is an M-16/AK-74 if the ballistics/handling are wrong? What good is an M-1 tank that flies thru the air and power-slides to a dead stop? Sorry to break it to you, but you've been enjoying unrealistic "proven" realism for several years now; how is this any different?

It's all in how you play it...If you don't want to play with rail guns then don't play a mission that uses them. I'm sure there will still be plenty of AK and M-16 variations to shake a stick at.

Take it for what it is; but if you want current/proven/realistic weapons and vehicles then about your only option is VBS2, and unless you have a couple-hundred bucks ready to blow this IS the closest thing we have.

I prefer modern warfare, but I would like to see a Vietnam War setting, or expansion.



And that is the sad part.



We know if they threw in lightsabres you would still buy it. Each to their own. I'll buy what I want, you buy what you want.



True, some optics/mounts do hold zero, but not all. And who honestly carries more than one sight system per weapon into combat? It is a nice feature, but so far it looks like a sequence in which you slap/rub the side of your weapon while waving it around and the accessory you removed simply disappears (same everything weapon related animation). Weapon accessories in the load out screen = good. Changing on the fly? Pretty useless for the most part.

The concern over the 'realism' of optics changing is misguided, because you're choosing to limit your perspective to fit your own idea of what is 'real' and what the system will be capable of.

No, you're probably not going to pull off your Aimpoint in a firefight and slap on a nice 10x Leupold just because that one guy is far away. However, the underlying system to support something like this has a lot of possibilities. All of the properties of a weapon in ArmA 2 are defined in a config file and cannot be changed without actually swapping the weapon mid-game. That's why the flashlight/IR switching system in ACE causes there to be a million variants of the same guns in the Magic Box.

BIS has confirmed that sights and suppressors, at least, can all be added/removed on the fly. That means that there is (almost certainly) now some way to alter the basic configuration of the weapon during gameplay without a ton of weapon clutter and programmer suffering. This is likely an extension/expansion of the existing system for having multiple optics types on the same rifle. This opens up a considerable number of possibilities in the weapons system.

To suggest only a few:
-In a very long mission, it could be fully reasonable for you to go out, do some door kicking with an Aimpoint, return to base, then be tasked with providing support for another group. At the FOB, rather than having to grab another rifle out of a box (not realistic, eh?), you can simply remove your Aimpoint and put on an ACOG. 'Geardos' rejoice.

-The ability to add/remove a suppressor mid-mission is 'realistic' -- and having that ability means that the need for "SD" ammunition for suppressed weapons has been fixed, which is a great improvement all around and will make the ammo system more robust.

-You will likely be able to attach and detach optics such as the AN/PVS-22 to add night vision capability to non-NV optics, such as a rifle scope or ACOG. And yeah, this is definitely a real thing, and will be a fantastic feature for night-fighting in ArmA.

-Perhaps some mod will now add a possibility for your optics to be damaged or for their batteries to die. Eotech out again, no cowitness for some reason? Pull it off and use the irons only. I don't see anything unrealistic about this, especially if you're not doing it in a firefight. Sometimes the burden of 'realism' is on the player.


It's easy to dismiss some features as "pretty useless" off-hand, but the structure that supports it is often more important than the surface details. It adds little to the discussion to just say effectively "I can't imagine a real use for this, so it's a crap system that wasted development time" when that simply isn't true.

I was talking about the weapon modding on the fly. As demonstrated in the video from a while back, it was nothing that hasn't already been done in ArmA 2 via mods. Same old animation and whatnot.

Something like a GRAW weapon loadout menu in the editor would be great. Or when walking up to an ammo box it can take you into a loadout sequence where again you can customize your weapons and gear.

What they are allowing you to do cannot be done with mods, other than half-doing it through an extremely awkward system that requires a considerable amount of code and model clutter, such as that in ACE and in the video.

It requires a fundamental change to the underlying system for how weapons are created for ArmA. It opens up a considerable number of possibilities by expanding the way weapons are configured in the game while addressing several of the flaws of the current system.

Edit: getting trolled in a troll thread.

You make so many assumptions and jump to so many conclusions.

I just want them to fix the bugs/features that have been there since OFP.


Oh, and changed it to 64bit.

In my "limited" English (yes, English is not my first language or the language that I speak every day) "I don't understand people like you" and "I was more confused with your logic" is basically the same thing -> Both sentences are synonyms.
But enough with semantics...




In my ArmA2 game cover it clearly says: THE ULTIMATE MILITARY SIMULATOR!!
You may say that the game doesn't simulate aircraft or tanks like dedicated simulations (flight, tank, etc...) BUT is SIMULATES (foot) infantry combat extremelly well -> Hell, ArmA2 is BY FAR the BEST and perhaps THE ONLY infantry (foot) soldier SIMULATOR!
So saying that ArmA2 isn't a simulator is wrong even if it has bugs or something that could be better modeled such as ballistics, but regarding to ballistics which simulator or infantry game models ricochets for example?

Resuming, IMO it is much more realistic to have REAL helicopters (and other hardware) modeled in a "simplistic" manner than have IMAGINARY/FUTURISTIC helicopters (and other hardware) modeled in a "simplistic" or even in a "realistic" manner!




I honestly doubt that we will see any AKs or M-16s in ArmA3 unless someone models them or BIS decides to release an Addon/DLC/etc... with them. That's why I said that I WILL ONLY BUY ArmA3 when or if such stuff comes out for ArmA3!

Don't get me wrong but with this lastest quote of yours I get the idea that you simply don't have an idea what VBS2 is all about. I played VBS2 and here's in what it consists:
-> Based in Armed Assault (ArmA1, yes ArmA ONE) 3D engine! This means that even ArmA2 is a much more modern and advanced version of 3D engine (not to mention ArmA3, of course) !
-> The vehicle (Helicopters, tanks, etc...) "simulation" in VBS2 is the exactly same as in ArmA/ArmA2. The only advantage that VBS2 had over the initial ArmA2 release was that VBS2 modeled termal sights from the begining and features that was later "solved" (and modeled) with "Operation Arrowhead"/"Combined Operations".
-> VBS2 doesn't have campaigns and Internet multiplayer (only LAN multiplayer).
-> The only thing that VBS2 seems to have that ArmA2/OA/CO doesn't have is the ability to replay a mission is view it in several angles (a feature specially designed for military contractors!)

So these are 3 HUGE REASONS why VBS2 isn't an alternative to ArmA3! HELL, VBS2 isn't even an alternative to ArmA2 OA/CO and therefore much less and alternative to ArmA3!!

Why? I don't understand this obsession with historical or real world equipment a lot of simmers have. So any speculation is inherently unrealistic? What difference does it make if a helicopter looks like an AH-64 Apache or a fictional AH-73 Thunderhawk if it's designed around real mission tactics and systems? You are basically stating that style trumps substance. You should LOVE Call of Duty then. It has all the REAL helicopters, tanks and rifles imaginable modeled in a decidedly "simplistic" manner. So it's by default more realistic than ARMA3 which has futuristic hardware

This!

Judging the game only from the screenshots I really like what I've seen so far. But I'm afraid the game will suffer from the same weaknesses that already ruined ArmA II for me, personally (and the videos I've seen so far have only confirmed my fear).

But hey, I'm looking forward for the Alpha or possible demo in case the Alpha will be limited and hope that I'll be proven wrong.

The answer is simple: Because I and others are exactly what you call us: simmers! So having a fictional AH-73 Thunderhawk instead of a AH-64 Apache is just as realistic as Call of Duty which is the same as saying: unrealistic! If I wanted to play something futuristic I would play HALO and since HALO doesn't interests me why should I play ArmA3??
So as you can see, NO I don't love, like or play Call of Duty. Basically what I want in a sim (infantry, combat flight, submarine, etc...) is the following:
-> Realistic and existing weaponry (past, present and VERY NEAR future weaponry)
-> Realistic order of battles
-> Believable scenarios

So basically OPF:CWC/Resistance, Armed Assault, ArmA2, ArmA2OA/CO does catter my needs for a sim (checks my list above) while ArmA3 won't!


So and using what you posted against you: You should LOVE HALO then!

Well, Arma3's direction proves 1 of 2 things. Either:
BIS is, after all these years, bored of REALISTIC things and wants to try something a little more futuristic or
Realistic isn't selling well enough and they're looking to change the formula hoping to increase sales.

Either way, it's obvious they're NOT making "Arma3: Same Game as the Last Two With Better Graphics." Those looking for that will be disappointed.



The Jedi Master

Whoa, I do love Halo.

@ric: Could you post the info you have on ArmA 3's factions' order of battle, and also explain why the scenarios will be limited to being unbelievable?

Also, since you have this information, please list the units and small arms other than the railgun tank that aren't real or that weren't real on the drawings boards of the 1980-90s. Other than the railgun tank and that transport Havok (itself a believable design), I haven't seen a single thing, but since you have access to this information and are using it to make your judgment, I hope you can provide it for us all.

Your rambling betrays an abject lack of understanding of what "realism" is. There is visual realism, and there is mechanical realism. Now, mechanical realism, in the sense of mechanics as systems, tactics, physics, effects etc is what defines a simulator as a simulator and not an arcade game. Call of Duty has lots of reallife weapons but it will still be more unrealistic than ARMA3 with completely fictional weapons. Because ARMA3 sets out to simulate reality and whether or not they set it in 1970 or 2070 doesn't factor in. Mechanics are what matters and that is key to what a simulation is. The notion that going what-if somehow invalidates the simulation "because it doesn't exist IRL" is quite silly. It's even more ridiculous considering things like railguns and laser guns have been around since the 1980's and enough data exists that we can accurately guesstimate their appearance and effects.

But what you said is that only appearance matters to you, which strikes me as an odd thing to say. What difference does it make that the CoD AK-47 looks photoreal when it doesn't act or sound anything like the real thing whereas the fictional rifle in ARMA3 most likely will act very much like it would if built IRL? But hey, ARMA3 has imaginary, futuristic weapons so it's clearly just like HALO.

In other words, it's unrealistic because you say so.

I remember when the Comanche was cancelled some people wanted them ripped out of EECH by the modders because it would suddenly be "unrealistic" to have them in the game anymore.

Of course, coming from the SFP1/2 community, where modders make planes that never were built let alone simply failed to enter service, and then model them as accurately as they could (I love flying the B-70 for instance), I've always appreciated fidelity over "realism". Maybe it was never built, or just not built yet, maybe because in Real Life it would cost too much, break down too often, fail in rain, whatever, I don't care. I just like seeing something that COULD exist modeled to as high a fidelity (as if it DID exist) as possible.

Of course, OFP and Arma have never existed in real terrain. There is no Everon, to Takistan, no Chernarus. Totally ridiculous names for made up locations that are nowhere on the planet (and never will...you can't someday "build" a new island). Made up factions only backed by real US and Russian units. But that's ok? It's not real, but that gets a pass?

You're cherry picking what aspects must be accurate and what can not and then slapping a catch-all "realistic" label based on that set of criteria, conveniently ignoring all the ones that are contrary to it. Then one thing pops up you're NOT willing to ignore and the realistic label comes off and instead you slap on some equally ridiculous "fantasy" label or something. Then when people point out that attitude isn't very reasonable, you protest.

Might as well say everyone under 200lbs is skinny and everyone over 200lbs is obese, regardless if they're 4'9" or 6'10".



The Jedi Master

In that sense, Limnos will be breaking ground because it is a real place, not a made up place using real terrain contours ( Chernarus for example). ArmA 3 will allow you to actually fight in the cities, as named. They're even mad about it -- apparently the terrain in ArmA 3 will be so realistic that it will threaten the national security of the island. Can't ask for much more realism than that, IMO.

Thanks Tao for again bringing some truth and sensibility to question.


And once again Jedie, you are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansai_International_Airport

jedi means you cant build .. for instance .. sahrani , not a sand berm that can hold an airfield

And why couldn't you build and island like sahrani?

Here's the only thing I want to know about Arma 3...

Can we import the terrain from Take on Helicopters and fight thru the streets of downtown Seattle?


Read that sentence again. Cmon, you know you want that..

I would totally play that even with the low-res details of the Seattle map.

As a joke, that's not very good.
If that was serious, it doesn't even merit a serious response.



The Jedi Master

And once again Jedie, you are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansai_International_Airport

Just as I thought, you can't think of a reason. Man made islands are nothing new. The only joke is your limited knowledge. You should get out more, Jedi.

Shadow... welcome to SimHQ, now watch yourself... all of you, discuss but do not turn this into a personal attack or hints on intelligence.

Thank you,
The Management

I'm looking forward to the future soldier scenario (in the new GRAW too) but why have the Comanche in it when it was cancelled? Adding thing in that perhaps will be in operation in the future is fine but a helo that will definitely not seems odd.

It's because RAH-66 computer models are readily available and virtually free. Companies have been modeling that thing since the Sega Genesis days.

Why do the work, when it has already been done by someone else.

I still dont' get it.

ArmA doesn't work like other games. "New Direction?" You think they are going to delete all their old work? This is not a complete rewrite of scripts and codes, I wouldn't imagine, they've always built off of previous engines, you can see OFP hiding in the shadows waving to you all over ArmA 2. From ArmA 1 to 2 to OA, its all been one big awesome mod.

So... there is no "new direction", its just putting modern, and futuristic weapons and things on TOP of what you have now. In addition, MODS.

From Operation Realism to the WWII mod, to.. the fidelty mod... Do we ever really play just what they gave us anyway? If we want to play a Mission that currently in the Monday/Thursday mission list... I bet we can do just that (all the materials will be available) about 3 months after Arma 3 is released.

This isn't CoD or MoH, we're not tied to the game they release... they're just having fun with the sand box. Bring your own toys to the sandbox, like we always have.

Yes, because the ability to build an island that small automatically means you could build your own Taiwan, Cuba, or even Greenland. It would obviously be practical, cost-effective, and take limited time. That's why after all we have dozens of islands with populations of millions that are all man-made all over the place.

[admin edit: personal attacks = off]

Next you'll say that since we built a space shuttle, we could easily make an aircraft carrier into a deep-space transport and fly to Jupiter. Or since we've figured out how to broadcast an electron from one location to another, we'll have Star Trek-style transporters tomorrow. Just because you have to know how to stand before you can run doesn't mean that the ability to stand equals winning a marathon.

[admin edit: personal attacks = off]



The Jedi Master

Okay kids, last warning.

Knock off the personal crap. I don't care who started it. Stop now.

Debate the topics, not attack the individuals.

My question stands, Why does Jedi Master think building a man made island can't be done "(and never will...you can't someday "build" a new island)"? Of course since he thinks he is from outer space, we earthlings shouldn't expect to much from him.

...aaaaaand that's all folks!