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!