Bohemia's realism.

[PeterBitt 10]

...

Now how to break it to the missus that i need a new rig :p

i was already thinking about a new rig for 2011, but now that arma 3 is announced i can spare some money and get a true monster for the summer of 2012

[Kirq 0]

100% agree with OP.

[demonized 20]

i am not worried at all, i think if BIS even would include lighsabers and talking drones it would still be good.

[hellfire257 3]

+1

We won't miss the whingers anyway!

[NoRailgunner 0]

As long as BIS devs or BIS betatester do some more/intense testing + bugfixing of ArmA III before going gold... Better safe than sorry! :cool:

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Yup, what the OP said.

[maturin 12]

The realism can actually be a hard sell for those who think that BF or the new OFP series does just fine in that regard. A lot of of it is in the form and structure of gameplay and environment. In particular, it's hard to talk up the ballistics when lots of games have bullet drop now, and I've seen people including windage on the list when this is purely an ACE feature.

But the shooting is still a lot more realistic at its core with the correct tracers, frequent ricochets, heavy recoil, Acogs that actually magnify (I see BF3 is aping CoD's stupid innovation) and above all the zeroing of sights to account for correct ballistic flightpaths. That last is really what makes the shooting difficult and different. It's a game you need actually knowledge to master the basics, instead of just muscle memory. I remember when I started, I thought the ballistic cracks were just the sounds AKs make when they're further away.

[rksl-rock 1300]

Personally, I'm not really bothered by the "Alternate reality", or the futuristic setting (10,20,30 years in the future?).

Out of all I've seen so far the only thing that bothers me is the lack of "plausible" development/progression of the design of the kit. By that I mean that some things we've been shown so far look like they were mashed together to produce a rather implausible product. Rather than the logical progression or evolution of most real designs and equipment. To cite one specific example: the "Hamok" seems rather more implausible than some other bits. I would have preferred a more logical design.

But without knowing the actual story its hard to guess how "alternate" this reality is.

[maturin 12]

I think they have some leeway concerning the extent to which gear has been upgraded or replaced.

After all, I'm sure the designers of the M14 never thought we would still be using it today, especially at the same time as predator drones.

[mr_centipede 31]

This is why I like fictional country more, like CDF or RACS or SLA or Takistan.

Just to be clear, I'm okay with BIS decision on the settings...

Edited June 8, 2011 by Mr_Centipede

[chris64 0]

i see now in teaser a tank with a future over gun , i see infaterie mens wits a battlesuit from 2080 and more little shit things to ............

i have have played arma and ofp - only all this years the atmosphere and the realunits....................

now sorry bis, im out - this kill the game

concratulations for you new 16teen year old cashcow..

arma is not a ghost recon or a battlefield - a good game makes not the spacial tactical hero factor !

and the atmosphere are not better with future spacials - thats the point

and shut up guys, with gametimeline arma 4 is then the great moon war with aliens ?

Quote of the century.

But I am actually very excited, firstly none of these weapons are not real as far as I know, even the cannon on that plausible helicopter (OMG WAHT FIRST SLIGHTLY DIFFERNET HELI THEN SPAECE WAR ON MARSS!!!!!!111!) is probably a real make, so ballistics can be worked out. And I also am really liking the look of the Iranian faction, they look awesome and I can understand why going a bit alt history/ SLIGHTLY into the future allows for a lot of creative freedom which is probably quite liberating after so much time just copying uniforms/weapons exactly (then getting yelled at for having a pouch wrong)

Basically the game will be fine, even if people have slightly different boots or whatever, and I think the Iranian soldiers look pretty cool :o

[MissionCreep 12]

I think realism needs to be reasonably authentic and/or believable to achieve any immersive game experience.

In short I just want to know how or why Iran (who seem to be the enemy this time around) has made happy-peace with Isreal and appear to be using their equipment. If the response is 'they just do'... Well consider me disappointed.

"Iran has severed all diplomatic and commercial ties with Israel, and its government does not recognize Israel as a country and refers to its government as the "Zionist regime". "

- Quote

Stranger things have happened.

On 23 August 1939, Molotov and Ribbentrop signed a non-aggression treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union. On 22 June 1941, the Germans invaded Russia.

The Americans financed and helped equip the Taliban in the 1980s. Less than 20 years later, the two were at war.

The US supplied Iraq with material and intelligence in the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). 15 years later the US invaded Iraq.

The Warsaw Pact was still in existence in 1991. By 1999 the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were full members of NATO.

The quest for power and domination breeds strange bedfellows.

[Undeceived 392]

OP said it right!

Additionally, I have 100% trust in BI. They always managed to excellently give reason to the incidents in the Armaverse. The story of the Armaverse in no moment was far-fetched or unbelievable to me.

[liquidpinky 11]

Because in tzhe past simulatuions about future warfare (F"" in the 90's) turned out to be quite bullshit fantasy after a few years in terms of realism.

Technological advancment is making slower steps in reality as proposed in Therory. Like back in teh 60's when everybody thought for sure that by 2010 war would be fought from and in Space...it is not...it is fought in dusty mountains by fighters with AKs and RPGs can still hold their ground and we stil burn fossile fuels istead of powerign our 200 ton Land Detroyer Tanks with Cold matter fusion. Powered exoskalletons and combat ready Energy weapons where announced for the 90's in the 80's...I still don't see it in use.

Fantasy is often Centuries ahead of reality when it dreams of next decades.

Like stealth transport helicopters under development in the 1970's that never seen the light of day either, oops wait a minute...............................

Some things never see the light of day, deosn't mean they aren't tried and tested somewhere for there usefulness though.

Energy weapons, well the actual destructive parts are possible today but their biggest failing is finding a viable power source, currently battery technology is all that is holding them back.

[nkenny 1051]

@Mission creep

Your points and examples are very valid, and founded in rich historical context. I'm not saying it is impossible for Iranian troops to understand/equip themselves with foreign weapons-- I am saying that I want a reasonably plausible background/setting for this to happen.

Again. 'They just do...' doesn't cut it. 'We wanted to do something different...' is equally weak. Continue down that path much further I'll demand M41a Pulse rifles (they are both cool, futury, and very different) and Sandals for soldiers (after all boots are done in every shooter-- and as I recall I certainly didn't wear boots when I visited greece. realism!) :P

-k

Edited June 16, 2011 by NkEnNy

[Haystack15 10]

+1 for OP

I also agree . I don't know why people correlate the near future with lack of realism .

+1 for maionaze

I don't understand that as well. War seemed to be the same sense the word was first invented, People still die or get injured, Things get blown up or destroyed. If that still happens in ARMA III then whats the problem? The only thing that change are the weapons and vehicles that get the job done. Unless BIS makes the player some "Rambo Bunny" with eyes that shoot slushies then, "Yea", I see a reason why to say "Its going to lack realism".

If if people still feel that A3 weapons and vehicles are unrealistic, Well there is a reason why this simulator is Moddable.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Haystack15

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Glad to see this forum has some smart people among the many delusional ones.

Btw, my only hope for BI's content is that they include standard foregrip & 40mm GL modules for the F2000s variants.

[pavel volonsky 44]

That's quite true.

[Maio 293]

Glad to see this forum has some smart people among the many delusional ones.

Btw, my only hope for BI's content is that they include standard foregrip & 40mm GL modules for the F2000s variants.

I agree with both your sentences :D .

I hope we get the m320 though . You know ... the one you can change in the field :devil:

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Now that we get weapon proxies, I sure hope we get to adjust the leaf sight. If we have an "addon proxy" on the weapon and it is active, shift F should toggle between the various states where allowed.

[Magog 10]

It seems many people are under the influence that the only things that made OFP and Operation Arrowhead realistic are the theatre's, I beg to differ. Each and every release has been realistic and it has nothing to do with the environment it takes place in, that is moreso theatre authenticity.

The realism that drives behind the RV engine is the way things work IE tanks being more than simply boxes that explodes when shot enough and only that, but rather a box that can be taken out of action by destroying it's gun or tracks, not just it's armor.

It's about flying some helicopters and being shot through the glass with certain weapons, or not being shot if it applies, it's about as a soldier being able to have various stances, equpiment, the ability to arrange that equipment and to be wounded in ways that make you less effective rather than being a simple number to death.

Operation Flashpoint took place on an island with a rogue soviet general and a fraction of the army, Armed Assault took place on an island with an odd regional mix of tropical and european landform, did those happen and do they exist?

If the rules of reality can be emulated to a degree then it stands on it's own as being called realistic, and while it is true that the RV engine does not emulate reality in all aspects, it does more than most.

The realism behind ARMA has never been about the setting, storyline or environment. Almost all places ARMA games have taken place in were fictional. The storylines were also hypothetical/fiction. Having said that, they were based on real life settings. ARMA: Armed Assault was based on the 1990-91 Gulf War. ARMA II was based on the Georgian-Russian conflict, etc. So there was a rational backdrop behind the fictional settings and storylines.

Needless to say, ARMA has never boasted its realism on that. Instead, the simulation aspect of ARMA was its main realistic drive, and that was based primarily on the weapons and vehicles and how they functioned during the game. It was also based on the realism behind actual combat and mission editing.

But although BIS tried fictional environments and stories, it's the first time they ever try fictional technology, and that places ARMA in a thin line between simulation and non-simulation. I feel BIS could be treading on thin ice but I hope I'm wrong.

[Derbysieger 11]

I didn't see any fictional technology so far. The only thing that's fictional are some vehicels wich are all based on current technology. The iranian soldiers wear some futuristic looking gear but we have no explanation about the technology behind it.

btw have you ever played WiC? Your nick sounds familiar.

[wolfbite 8]

In fictional they maybe use a bit of artistic licensing... But the realism stems from that is a full combined ops military conflict as opposed to 1 guy shooting thousands of people and one tank singlehandedly....

The realism is not the unist... There is no chernoruss or takistan IRL..

They could totally make up every unit in the game... It would still be realistic because of how the simulation with ballistics-sound-different military branches-support etc all operate as near as possible as they should...

What the units are is totally inconsequential to the realism.

I dont see how a comanche or fn2000 can make anything unrealistic.. we know how they operate.. what weapons they use and their role.. Its realistic if they were employed..

[whisper 0]

Has anyone seen magnetic hovering vehicles? Lasers? Exosuits?

None of this is visible in A3 presentation.

Only a bunch of artistic models derived from real ones, all using current technologies of current weapons and vehicles.

If A2 had true representation of tanks, interiors, real gunner work simulated, real weapon systems, range finders, if it had complete chopper avionics represented, all buttons (ie, if it was Steel Beast + DCS), then yes, we would have lost something by going into fictional land.

but we have none of that, because this is not the purpose of ArmA.

[sander 14]

A reasonable and pressing reason for warring parties in a major conflict to use enemy weapons is the insatiable demand for more weaponry in the shortest possible term. Whereas peacetime acquisition would/should take into account matters like standardisation such delicate financial and logistical concerns are likely to take second place once a significant shooting war starts. The need for arms will then cause rapidly expanded military forces to start impressing captured weaponry en masse or order in a hurry whatever can be found on the market regardless of origin or even suitability.

In a perfect World War II Britain would probably have stuck to the standard peacetime armament in larger numbers, but necessity forced it to acquire a vast array of assorted weapons, in part in deviating calibres to boot, to get arms into service quickly and in more or less sufficient numbers. Acquisition of items like the Ross rifle, P14, Lewis gun, Browning M1917 and BAR in 1940/1941 would probably not have taken place if the production capacity would have existed to churn out Lee-Enfields, Brens and Vickers in the quantities demanded.

Regards,

Sander