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!
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...
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?
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!
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 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!!