What do you think off the "future" setting

[no use for a name 0]

Fanciful imaginary weapons = self ridicule

BIS have left themselved exposed to ridicule and mockery from the bonafide military simulation communities.

What are you talking about? The weapons they're using are actually real, and have been/are being tested in the field. They're not imaginary, the DO exist...

As long as BIS gets the ballistics and handling right there's nothing to complain about IMO

[nodunit 397]

We need a stickied thread to show modern and previous technologies that were in the works be they prototype or not.

[-GR-Operative 10]

Fairly easily, with a little imagination.

Ok, it's 202x in the armaverse, NATO forces have finished a new heavily-armoured APC based around a Land-Rover style chassis.

I've already got the general shape restrictions, (a landie), another requirement is the heavy armour, so I'll have a look at what sort of armour we're using these days, a lot of it is angular and heavy-looking, so mould that around the existing chassis, get rid of the windows and replace them with slats, maybe some racks on the top and the sides for carrying equipment.

Put some more armour on the sides and give it bigger wheels, with a better suspension

Now we have a realistic looking vehicle. Now how would it handle?

Well, it wouldn't break any land speed records, but it would hit about 40 without too many problems.

Turning would be like a humvee, and the suspension would probably allow it to sway a little going around corners, stopping would also be a little slow due to the weight of the armour and baggage.

Here we have a new, made-up vehicle that's realistic.

Help solve your question? :)

Man, you know this does make sense, but may be not realistic, right?

You can't assume or imagine when dealing with realism: or the things are, or are not.

Now tell me, realistically, how is the handling of a FS2000 in 6.5 grendel (or any other cartridge for the matter)? You can assume it is in a particular way, but you can't be sure it's like it's in real life (our reality).

[Perforator 10]

How on earth can anyone predict which prototypes will be mass produced by 2025. It's absurd.

[max power 21]

Are you seriously suggesting that BIS is trying to predict the future by producing a work of fiction? Do you think Tom Clancy writes the truth? Seriously.

[Perforator 10]

Conjecture is a word that comes to mind. Why base a realistic military simulation on guesswork?. I don't want the ARMA series to eventually morph into Carrier Command.

[arigram 0]

People will always find a reason to complain.

Whether it's based on present, historical, abandoned, prototyped, proposed or fictional equipment, there always going to be something wrong.

I personally trust BI to deliver something realistic (as in, able to exist and function in a believable way), but with a touch of imagination.

You can drag a slider from completely imaginary to completely naturalistic and its position is always going to suit one person and not others.

like:

imaginary <-----------O-----------------------> naturalistic

I understand that many people want the slider all the way to the right, but like I said, I like a bit of imagination, especially if its going to be the same tired old US Army and Russia and their cold war allies. I am tired of Abraams and Humvees and Colt rifles and Kalashnikovs and same T-72 variations.

Since the game has to please the American crowds to have a chance to sell in a descent number and not be considered terribly obscure, the choice of familiar territory but with a "twist" seems logical.

I mean, how long will this continue:

Should Arma 3 be added on the comparison screenshot with the SAME OLD stuff?

Armies don't change their equipment as fast as games do.

New equipment will not only have some degree of refreshing imagination, but may also be a demonstrator of new engine technology.

Also, considering that the moding community will come up with their own versions of equipment that EXISTS in the vanilla game or port their older models, there is not going to be a shortage of current era realistic equipment. And you will able to argue with the modelers to your heart's content.

There are ENOUGH A-10s and M1A1s and AH-64s and T-80s and Kalashnikovs and Colts to gorge upon and fill one's "realistic military" lust.

I want BI to deliver something fresh and imaginary.

And I know its not going to be Crysis or Carrier Command or Halo or even COD.

Its going to be Arma/OFP.

Also, many "realistic simulators" of the past where based on fictional or classified vehicles, because for one thing, they couldn't possibly depict them realistically in the hardware of the 80s and early 90s, so they had a lot of leeway to play around. Even an existing plane would have its cockpit simplified and rearranged to fit the capabilities computers of the time.

The end simulation experience was more than good enough.

This was my first military simulator (for my Commodore 64):

I personally loved the fact that I could "preview the future" or get inside a classified, secret, advanced technological machine (which at the time, the public didn't know if it actually existed or not and in which form). But I guess I never been much of a bolt counter.

I trust BI.

They are making a civilian flight simulator with top accuracy and a futuristic action/strategy game and I believe Arma 3 is something else all together.

The vehicles may not have every switch and level functioning and their handling characteristics not faithful as TKOH (for many good reasons) but they aren't going to be the Mantras of Carrier Command.

(although if you think about it, apart from the futuristic equipment, there is nothing really about Carrier Command that can't be replicated with today's equipment, so you can recreate CC with Arma)

I seriously don't understand the constant bitching.

Edited June 18, 2011 by arigram

[Perforator 10]

They are making a civilian fighter simulator with top accuracy

What game is that?

[arigram 0]

What game is that?

My mistake, I meant to write "flight" not "fighter".

After all "Civilian fighter" doesn't really make much sense, unless you're talking about guerrillas or that sort of thing.

[max power 21]

Project stealth fighter became F-19. That game was awesome and the only stealth flight simulator ever done. The gameplay was really cool.

Conjecture is a word that comes to mind. Why base a realistic military simulation on guesswork?. I don't want the ARMA series to eventually morph into Carrier Command.

So you object to this fiction because you are afraid of what might happen in the future? Surely the irony isn't lost on you.

[Perforator 10]

So you object to this fiction because you are afraid of what might happen in the future

I prefer military simulations that are more factual than fictional.

I'm a sucker for hardcore realism.

[rye1 21]

I must admit the 2025 setting and some of the models put me off quite a bit, I can't wait till someone mods it.

[arigram 0]

I prefer military simulations that are more factual than fictional.

I'm a sucker for hardcore realism.

Arma 3 will be more factual than fictional (according to the slider concept).

Considering its still a game and not a training simulator found in a real army facility, it has to make some concessions in regards to absolute realism since it has to cover a large scope of simulation.

Its not "one-vehicle study simulator" where you can devote all your resources in making sure all the switches are in the right place and all your buttons function as it should.

There is another company that does that.

Arma is a war game, a battleground simulator, an action/strategy game in the first perspective with a focus on combined warfare and a slight leaning towards the infantry side.

You know that, we all know that.

Vehicles are just models, hollow software representations that apart from appearance cannot function realistically 100% in this game.

So, even if the Apache looks 100% from the outside, its function will be much more limited than it would be in a study simulator.

In the end, then, its just the appearance that makes it "realistic" or not.

If you took the Apache model and added a second rotor or removed one cockpit but retained the functionality as in shooting cannons, missiles and turning as expected, they only thing that would make it "unrealistic" would be its outer appearance.

And IMHO, that's a pretty shallow point of view.

Argue with DCS over the fidelity of their simulator, but in Arma you are only arguing over the visual appearance of a model.

If the Comanche doesn't do it for you, download a community Apache and make a mission out of that, simple.

I want to see the Comanche. I want to drive something new, something fresh. And in my mind it will be as realistic as the Arma (not another game) experience can give you.

Hell, maybe in the future, BI could be able to have different games communicating with another (as DCS claims it will), so Take On Helicopters, or Tanks, or whatever, could merge with Arma. One game to provide the vehicle simulation fidelity, another the operational environment.

After all, they have demonstrated that technology between them is shared and that TKOH can read Arma maps.

Edited June 18, 2011 by arigram

[Perforator 10]

Arma 3 will be more factual than fictional (according to the slider concept).

It's sliding further toward the fictional end of the slider, I'd prefer the ARMA series slid more in the Steel Beasts Pro/Digital Combat Similator direction.

[PuFu 4600]

good fucking lord, give it a break already! We can argue all day if a full spec SCI FI game can or not be realistic - i say it can as long as the damn engine incorporates realistic balistic modeling, human bahaviour and destruction etc etc, no matter of the content.

comanche or nor, hamok or not, A3 will have A2 engine improved, featuring the same things everyone loves. No 50 mag to shoot one guy down, guns will still fire bullets, etc etc.

WTF is this fictional thing? Every damn game is a fiction. A2/A1/OFP etc, all were. Battle for Europe is and so forth. Why do ppl have a bonner for those M4s/m16s and/or some ugly looking camo scheme is weir...

Let the game developers have some artistic license for a change.

Edited June 18, 2011 by PuFu

[arigram 0]

It's sliding further toward the fictional end of the slider, I'd prefer the ARMA series slid more in the Steel Beasts Pro/Digital Combat Similator direction.

Everyone does.

That's why they're asking for complex penetration modeling, realistic ballistics, truthful flight dynamics, believable physics, 3D scopes, functioning screens-scopes-HUDs, guidance computers and smart weapons, better animated humans, immersive environment, more challenging weather and so on and so forth.

Realism is not only about the appearance of the models.

Artists handle the models and I like that the have some freedom of expression.

They are still very much based on reality and apart from some looks, it is barely Star-Wars like pseudo-sci-fi.

There are tons of simulators that have touched fictional scenarios, from the old Microprose F-15 Strike Eagle II to Falcon 4 and its future war of Korea to even the DCS series.

They kept the "old" aircraft and transported it to the future, which is hardly realistic.

And I don't want to see any more Cold War era and current US war recreations.

I understand that the Anglo-Saxon coalition that is fighting these wars have a lot of fans from their countries, but there is plenty of present content to satisfy them.

And I am sure the Cold War Rearmed mod is going to be converted to Arma 3.

And I am sure many other mods will too, covering modern or WWII or other conflicts.

BIS have done Cold War, they did modern warfare, they simulated current theaters of operation with great accuracy, but they have shown that they don't want to go back in time to WWII, Korea or Vietnam.

No one know where Arma 4 will be based.

So, what's the big deal?

You will get your "realistic" models, if not from BI.

But the Bohemians are working for realism and realism goes far beyond model appearance. I hope more for realistic engine updates and new weapon and infantry capabilities but in a fresh environment with new vehicles.

Edited June 18, 2011 by arigram

[[frl]myke 14]

Well, ArmA 3 doesn't play in the far but near future. So equipment will be evolved from actual existing stuff. Physical behaviours and are known and well documented. Physics will most probably work in the future as it does today. So extrapolating the behaviour of future equipment based on todays knowledge isn't really Sci-Fi.

And even if it would be...look at this:

Now compare with this:

Sometimes even Sci-Fi is actually better in predicting the future than expected back in the time.

[Perforator 10]

good fucking lord, give it a break already! We can argue all day

Arguing? We are discussing, not arguing, afterall I assume the OP wanted honest answers to his question.

[Innomadic 10]

Because Arma was only ever realistic because of the contemporary vehicle designs...

And i could see so many of the reactions if A3 turned out to be Cold War era or Middle East...

"not Russia again"

"not insurgents again"

"not the same old shit again"

"what exactly is new?"

"will it be worth the purchase?"

"BI Y U NO MAKE SOMETHING NEW?"

...and so on and so forth.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Innomadic

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Everyone does.

Don't make that assumption. Realistic armor penetration is one thing, but hardcore simulator is a do not want by many players. I've always felt that if you want a hardcore simulator, there's always VBS.

[kohlenhydrat 10]

Don't make that assumption. Realistic armor penetration is one thing, but hardcore simulator is a do not want by many players. I've always felt that if you want a hardcore simulator, there's always VBS.

yes absolutly hey.. why we don't introduce Battlemechs into Arma III ? i bet we will have them in the future O_O

realy .. it's a different if you use just fictional countries or if you use weapons that wouldnt and will never get over a prototype status.

[Innomadic 10]

yes absolutly hey.. why we don't introduce Battlemechs into Arma III ? i bet we will have them in the future O_O

realy .. it's a different if you use just fictional countries or if you use weapons that wouldnt and will never get over a prototype status.

Because Arma is still keeping the future weapons limited in scope to what is technically feasible, and so therefore no Gundams in A3?

Please get a little perspective on how "futuristic" applies to the game, no one is suggesting take out the F-35 with VF-0's, no one is suggesting that all Helos should be replaced by Pelicans. Really its just giving them an excuse to get out of the rut of making M1A1's, T-72's, Apaches, AR's all over again, and that doesn't mean they're gone forever, i mean honestly which AR rifles did you prefer, Vanilla or ACE?

[PuFu 4600]

yes absolutly hey.. why we don't introduce Battlemechs into Arma III ? i bet we will have them in the future O_O

that will happen either way

[instagoat 133]

yes absolutly hey.. why we don't introduce Battlemechs into Arma III ? i bet we will have them in the future O_O

realy .. it's a different if you use just fictional countries or if you use weapons that wouldnt and will never get over a prototype status.

Battlemechs are useless on the battlefield, and for that reason will never be fielded, ever. They´re large targets, they´re cumbersome and slow, they´re complicated to operate and maintain, and pretty much their only advantage is the coolness factor.

Battlemechs are unrealistic, because you need to cheat to make them useable on the battlefield. (Shields, massive toughness, dumb enemies, etc.) A combat suit with a heat-exchange to reduce IR signature isn´t. Neither are the comanche or the caiman (Hamok).

BUT WEH, why am I even arguing. This is never going to end...

[xMobiusTyrx 10]

I don't really care, it's a good change in scenery I guess. ArmA 1 and ArmA 2 were basically the same games