What do you think off the "future" setting

[Uberduderofdoomer 10]

That the aircraft is fictitious at all is what bothers me. But yes, at least it looks like something feasable.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

That the aircraft is fictitious at all is what bothers me.

It bothers you that several years into the future new aircraft designs might exist? I guess you're in for a bothersome future. :rolleyes:

[bangtail 0]

Not a fan of it at all but I only really care about the editor/tools so it's not a huge consideration.

Would have preferred Nam, Chechnya, Falklands, Sierra Leone etc. I'm more into historical conflicts than hypothetical conflicts with weapons systems/platforms that don't exist (hybrid chopper for example) but as long as the editor and the core 'milsim' components of the franchise are there, it doesn't really matter where or when it is set.

Edited June 17, 2011 by BangTail

[Uberduderofdoomer 10]

It bothers you that several years into the future new aircraft designs might exist? I guess you're in for a bothersome future. :rolleyes:

I usually wouldnt mind, its just that in something like arma I dont really see why they would invent something up like that.

On the other hand, I would love it if they included stuff that isnt out yet but that is planed to come out or be implemented in the near future, as there is alot of that.

[5LEvEN 11]

This poll is biased in my opinion...

There should be an option to say "I don't care if it is not too far in the future and is accurate."

Five years ago you could accurately simulate things we have today. twenty years ago you can not accurately simulate things we have today, because today was too far into the future.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I don't really care as long as I get the options needed to have a varied squad setup that allows the job to get done. As long as it's not an M1 Garand (on west at least) :D

[Montanaro 0]

OFP was 1985...

I dont see what the big deal is jumping an equal distance into the future

[Tonmeister 14]

sure the time is set in the future, but the scenario is hypothetical. I see no problems with the hypothetical scenario.

[ziiip 1]

Don't mind the future setting, but the Comanche? Seriously? That was cancelled in 2004, it's like the XM8 in ArmA 2.

I still want to put my hand on that sexy. :nuts:

[Uberduderofdoomer 10]

I hope they include some older stuff though. I loved how T-34's were included in OA. More of that stuff would be epic. After all, Ak's are going to be used for the next 50 years probably. In fact, im kind of pissed F-14's, 15's, and 16's arent included. They may be less relevant than they used to be but it's important to include, I think.

[Banderas 0]

Don't mind the future setting, but the Comanche? Seriously? That was cancelled in 2004, it's like the XM8 in ArmA 2.

Well... the Il-2 Sturmovik series had its last expansion called 1946, and it was full of aircraft which either didn't ever saw any combat action, didn't get past prototype state or even only existed on schematics (MiG I-250, Yak-15, Do-335, Ho-229 aka Ghota, Lerche....), there were scenairos where players could pit Me-262s against P-80s, which didn't ever happen...Nobody complained about it, although the Il-2 community is also a mature, hard-core simulation fanatic base. Maybe they found it interesting to "drive" some other exotic planes other than Bf-109/P-39/Yak-9.

There'll be a lot of Apaches, there'll be a lot of mods for it that will cover today's accurate equipment, if not anything else one might be able to port Arma 1's mlods into A3.

[dmarkwick 261]

You know what? Even though I'm ex-military, I don't know my weaponry or vehicles. If I hadn't read about the future setting here, I might have simply assumed all those equipments to be actual RL analogs. As long as there's no obviously "magic" technology evident, I'll be happy.

[roberthammer 582]

You know what? Even though I'm ex-military, I don't know my weaponry or vehicles. If I hadn't read about the future setting here, I might have simply assumed all those equipments to be actual RL analogs. As long as there's no obviously "magic" technology evident, I'll be happy.

I bet - there is secret big rail gun (not on tanks - like someone thinks from teaser) - anyway rail gun is not a fiction , we have no idea what kind secret weapons or prototypes are out :p

[Archosaurusrev 12]

I bet - there is secret big rail gun (not on tanks - like someone thinks from teaser) - anyway rail gun is not a fiction , we have no idea what kind secret weapons or prototypes are out :p

Rail guns were used in WW2, in very small numbers (Extreme cost to manufacture, not even sure if they were even used, they were manufactured for sure...) but the tanks do not have rail guns in ArmA3.

It would be unpractical.

[mrcash2009 0]

If I dont get a stealth cloak and smoke shells dont use holographic projection, and laser optics dont become actual penetrating lasers for firing, I wont buy this.

So I welcome the future approach.

[paecmaker 23]

If I dont get a stealth cloak and smoke shells dont use holographic projection, and laser optics dont become actual penetrating lasers for firing, I wont buy this.

So, I guess youre not buying it then.

[roberthammer 582]

If I dont get a stealth cloak and smoke shells dont use holographic projection, and laser optics dont become actual penetrating lasers for firing, I wont buy this.

So I welcome the future approach.

You know - there already exist the Photo-Stealth Camouflage Technology or Active Camouflage

Basicly that Technology is blending into your environment ,which creates perfect camo - sure it don't work 100% at the monent ,but in the future it can be done ;)

Edited June 17, 2011 by RobertHammer

[rye1 21]

You know - there already exist the Photo-Stealth Camouflage Technology or Active Camouflage

Basicly that Technology is blending into your environment ,which creates perfect camo - sure it don't work 100% at the monent ,but in the future it can be done ;)

Just like my pajamas.

[Primarch 10]

You know - there already exist the Photo-Stealth Camouflage Technology or Active Camouflage

Basicly that Technology is blending into your environment ,which creates perfect camo - sure it don't work 100% at the monent ,but in the future it can be done ;)

It works 100%, on a nano scale and from only from a certain angle.

The active camouflage is for the next 10-20 years just sci-fi from the current viewpoint.

[wolfbite 8]

I know they practiced active camouflage on a few Dauntless avengers... They had lights along the front of the wing that were set to roughly the same backround illumination levels and it reduced the spotting distance from something like 15 km to 4... those might not be the distances I read about it ages ago...

[Magog 10]

Personally I don't like it.

One thing that made ARMA different than dumbed down games like Battlefield and Call of Duty was the seriousness that it dedicated to its fans. ARMA brands itself as a mil-sim. In order to be a real military simulator, you need to simulate things that already exist in the world of military. There's nothing realistic about weapons or vehicles that don't even exist or aren't in the planning phase of coming to existence 10 years down the road, therefore ARMA 3 is essentially losing its simulation experience.

I think the series has taken a turn for the worse and has probably done that in order to attract more interest from the general gaming community. Sadly for those who went after realism and simulation, it only means we might have to look elsewhere in the future for a more appropriate product to buy.

There's a difference between fictional stories about warfare, within the realms and boundaries of real-world matters that have existed or continue to exist, and between a future setting that is going to use technology that is merely hypothetical and hence non-existent in our present reality.

Not only am I slightly bothered about what other non-existent weapons or vehicles ARMA3 developers have at hand, but I also find the storyline of ARMA3 cheesy in some sort of way.

[dmarkwick 261]

Personally I don't like it.

One thing that made ARMA different than dumbed down games like Battlefield and Call of Duty was the seriousness that it dedicated to its fans. ARMA brands itself as a mil-sim. In order to be a real military simulator, you need to simulate things that already exist in the world of military. There's nothing realistic about weapons or vehicles that don't even exist or aren't in the planning phase of coming to existence 10 years down the road, therefore ARMA 3 is essentially losing its simulation experience.

In my experience the gameplay is what makes OFP/ArmA that way.

I think the series has taken a turn for the worse and has probably done that in order to attract more interest from the general gaming community. Sadly for those who went after realism and simulation, it only means we might have to look elsewhere in the future for a more appropriate product to buy.

Gawd almighty :) ArmA has always been a game. It's the setup that creates realism: the mission, the addons, the equipment. All set by the mission maker. The game will be as realistic as the mission maker wants it to be. In ArmA2, not every mission has every bit of equipment in the game available.

There's a difference between fictional stories about warfare, within the realms and boundaries of real-world matters that have existed or continue to exist, and between a future setting that is going to use technology that is merely hypothetical and hence non-existent in our present reality.

Not only am I slightly bothered about what other non-existent weapons or vehicles ARMA3 developers have at hand, but I also find the storyline of ARMA3 cheesy in some sort of way.

Nice precognition. Myself I have no impression how cheesy it is because I don't know anything about it.

[Magog 10]

In my experience the gameplay is what makes OFP/ArmA that way.

Point for point, gameplay is what makes ARMA realistic, and I never stated otherwise. Additionally, its content is what makes it a self-classified military simulator. When the content of a game exceeds the boundaries of our present or past realities, it's no longer simulating anything but rather nulling the realism factor.

Gawd almighty :) ArmA has always been a game. It's the setup that creates realism: the mission, the addons, the equipment. All set by the mission maker. The game will be as realistic as the mission maker wants it to be. In ArmA2, not every mission has every bit of equipment in the game available.

As I said above, a combination of many elements gives a game its realism. ARMA is a game, thank you for the information, but it labels itself as a mil-sim as well. If it wants to do a Battlefield it should no longer call itself a mil-sim for that genre's enthusiasts.

Nice precognition. Myself I have no impression how cheesy it is because I don't know anything about it.

Read the story description in ARMA3's official homepage. So you don't waste your time searching for it, here:

After years of intense warfare against Eastern armies, Europe has become the last stand for the battered NATO forces. On the verge of being driven into the sea, NATO command embarks upon a most desperate measure. In the hope of seizing what seems to be a well-guarded military secret, Operation Magnitude is launched.

A small group of Special Forces and Researchers are sent to a Mediterranean island deep behind enemy lines. However, the mission is compromised and the task force destroyed, leaving Cpt. Scott Miller washed ashore upon the hostile island. In his effort to carry out the mission, he will face the dangers of modern warfare, an unforgiving environment, and the consequences of his own decisions...

[Montanaro 0]

but I also find the storyline of ARMA3 cheesy in some sort of way.

you must have have hated OFP then... :rolleyes:

But if it bothers you that the game is set a few years into the future, don't buy the game.

But I'm sure you will anyway and slobber over it like a good sheep. :j:

and for the record, I have no idea where people get the "Military Sim" thing from. Oh wow, they made VBS! You can also run around on foot and get in vehicles, that means ARMA is a simulation of real life!

Some of you people are ridiculous...as if a bullpup rifle replacing the m4 and m16 is going to ruin gameplay...

[blu3sman 11]

One thing that made ARMA different than dumbed down games like Battlefield and Call of Duty was the seriousness that it dedicated to its fans. ARMA brands itself as a mil-sim. In order to be a real military simulator, you need to simulate things that already exist in the world of military. There's nothing realistic about weapons or vehicles that don't even exist or aren't in the planning phase of coming to existence 10 years down the road, therefore ARMA 3 is essentially losing its simulation experience.

So, what about this arcadey shit?

When this software was created the helicopter that it simulates did not exist IRL...:rolleyes: