Is Arma 3 authentic?

[Black Cat 10]

the MI48 concept just sticks in my gullet

Sure it's pretty cool to use fictive stuffs giving you new abilities etc... but it's getting away from authentism (the exact copy of Real life).

Addon making and mods will allow to bring back official equipments of today's armies (like ACE 3). so it doesn't really matter guys. :cool:

So what if its getting away from exact real life? I don't understand why some people can't get over some of these things. All these things are totally possible if someone wants to do them. If the Russians want to make a Mi-48, they can. It's completely plausible.

If the US wants to put a couple billion dollars into advancing railgun tech and making it more portable, they can. If some Persian designer wants to design a HUD-enabled helmet with bug eyes and a Micro-Cooling Unit, they can. Actually, he could produce it, too.

And why have the same experience every time? Why have the same old ArmA with US vs Russians/Terrorists? You can always go for something new, unique, and 3x better.

[tacticalnuggets 24]

So what if its getting away from exact real life? I don't understand why some people can't get over some of these things. All these things are totally possible if someone wants to do them. If the Russians want to make a Mi-48, they can. It's completely plausible.

If the US wants to put a couple billion dollars into advancing railgun tech and making it more portable, they can. If some Persian designer wants to design a HUD-enabled helmet with bug eyes and a Micro-Cooling Unit, they can. Actually, he could produce it, too.

And why have the same experience every time? Why have the same old ArmA with US vs Russians/Terrorists? You can always go for something new, unique, and 3x better.

US is broke, it would be more realistic if they had swords and horses! :P

[nodunit 397]

US is broke, it would be more realistic if they had swords and horses! :P

Pshaw! You think being trillions of dollars in debt is going to make us stop spending more money than everyone else on our defense budget?

[dm 9]

Sure it's pretty cool to use fictive stuffs giving you new abilities etc...

What exactly is the Mi48 allowing you to do that an Mi28 or Mi24 would not?

[CameronMcDonald 146]

but it's getting away from authentism (the exact copy of Real life).

Like I mentioned to another of my favourite forum members, it's going to be pretty hard to copy real life when the game is set 20 YEARS INTO THE FUTURE.

[FeoFUN 10]

Why would they develop the Panha 2091 if it was not an improvement on the Ah-1T?

It's not the question of improvement - the situation is completely different.

1) They're under the sanctions.

2) They need to replace the old Cobras with something, because of expiration of resource.

3) They can't buy the new attack helicopters from Russia due to sanctions and can't copy Mi-24 because it will lead to confrontation with us(we and the China are their last protectors in the UN Security Council).

4) They can't design the completely new attack helicopter.

5) And finally, the AH-1 is the only pure medium attack helicopter they have access to.

maybe because they got fucking bored to tears with recreating in detail something that it's already out there, with almost 0 creativity, just technical skill?

From my POV, it isn't very creative - simply mixing up three soviet designs, without solid investigation of technical details, trends and history. That's why it has the huge hole in the place of the main fuel tank and main spangouts, using the ATGMs which are incompatible with its FCS and carrying the cannon which is completely alien to Russian cannon design school.

For me, it's wrong design, not futuristic - just wrong.

Furthermore, i think it could be far better, if BI based their design on the Ka-50-2 Erdogan project or on the last Russian project of the "prospective attack helicopter" which is resembling and developing the Ka-50-2 design. That's the trend of our Russian helicopters - more or less futuristic but pretty real and believable.

If to say again about the US designs, i would prefer to see in A3 the new F/A-XX, which is intended to replace the F/A-18 in 2030 and looking damn futuristic. Additionally, i wish to see the Sikorsky S-97 RAIDER.

[slatts 1978]

i dont about you...but give me 20 years and i could redo the FCS to make those wrong missles into the right ones

my point being that so what if it is the wrong one, 20 years down the line someone can make fire those missles

[max power 21]

It's not the question of improvement - the situation is completely different.

It is a question of improvement. The helicopters must be improved, therefore they are improving them.

[FeoFUN 10]

It is a question of improvement. The helicopters must be improved, therefore they are improving them.

There is a big difference between the abilities and wishes. Today Iran may only hope on prolongation of resource and copying of the old designs, if the resource of original can't be prolonged due to its physical limitations and age.

Edited May 10, 2012 by FeoFUN

[Corvinus 35]

They're under the sanctions.

I don't think they are under any sanctions in the year 2035 in the Armaverse.

Furthermore, i think it could be far better, if BI based their design on the Ka-50-2 Erdogan project or on the last Russian project of the "prospective attack helicopter" which is resembling and developing the Ka-50-2 design. That's the trend of our Russian helicopters - more or less futuristic but pretty real and believable.

I agree with you on that point.

[cychou 11]

So what if its getting away from exact real life? I don't understand why some people can't get over some of these things. All these things are totally possible if someone wants to do them. If the Russians want to make a Mi-48, they can. It's completely plausible.

If the US wants to put a couple billion dollars into advancing railgun tech and making it more portable, they can. If some Persian designer wants to design a HUD-enabled helmet with bug eyes and a Micro-Cooling Unit, they can. Actually, he could produce it, too.

with lot of "if" we can redo the world.

the pretext of future conflicts scenarios to use fictive materials and vehicles remove realism and immersion. there is no limits to add fancy equipments.

BI could have imagined a coming NATO vs IRAN/insurgents Scenario with real equipments.

Edited May 10, 2012 by cychou

[Dingo8 1]

with lots of "if" we can redo the world.

the pretext of future conflicts scenarios to use fictive materials and vehicles remove realism and immersion. there is no limits to add fancy equipments.

BI could have imagined a coming NATO vs IRAN/insurgents Scenario with real equipments.

It's a game; And compared to some other games based in the not too far future, they seem to have balanced it quite well with realism, since only a few vehicles/weapons are fictional and yet still mostly plausible.

If you don't like it, nothing stops you from buying VBS2, waiting for a community mod that suits your needs, or just playing something else. They sure aren't going to completely change Arma 3 just to please you.

[Black Cat 10]

with lot of "if" we can redo the world.

the pretext of future conflicts scenarios to use fictive materials and vehicles remove realism and immersion. there is no limits to add fancy equipments.

BI could have imagined a coming NATO vs IRAN/insurgents Scenario with real equipments.

And, as always, Iran would have horrible gear compared to the US, and any mission would be a total steamroll on the US's part.

BI is trying to give the OPFOR a chance, which is something they've never had before.

And, in case you haven't noticed, it's after WWIII. I bet no German in 1939 would have ever thought that in 6 years their country would have jet and rocket planes, wire-guided missiles, and nuclear tech.

The world could have a large manufacturing boost from the war, so all the railgun/helmets/Mi-48 tech could easily exist in this scenario.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Black Cat

[cychou 11]

And, as always, Iran would have horrible gear compared to the US, and any mission would be a total steamroll on the US's part.

BI is trying to give the OPFOR a chance, which is something they've never had before.

Not sure if Iran would have more chance vs US even in 50 years. the gape will be always the same.

a present NATO vs IRAN + China (new scenario) conflict would be an hard task for both camps. no need to go 35 years in the futur.

[FeoFUN 10]

i dont about you...but give me 20 years and i could redo the FCS to make those wrong missles into the right ones

my point being that so what if it is the wrong one, 20 years down the line someone can make fire those missles

You even can re-design them for using the cheese-cakes instead of HE warhead, but it won't make them authentic, believable and reasonable for me.

And yeah, fantastically stupid engineers in the fantastic Armaverse, i'd say - instead of using the TOR-compatible and combat-proven ATGM Ataka, they've spent the years and dozens of millions bucks on re-design of non-compatible ones, which even weren't in serial production, to make them compatible with the TOR EOS, which doesn't have the room for guidance channel, due to its construction. Is the Armaverse the only excuse for such a stupid way to arm the heli?

Another 'interesting' question: what is the purpose of that nose-cone at Mi-48 then? Because on the Mi-28 it covers the antenna of the RC-guided ATGM's Ataka, but Mi-48 isn't carrying them! Oh, let me guess, they're redesigned the Vikhr. But the question is the same - what for?

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad - and the Armaverse isn't excuse for such a mismatches.

[dm 9]

but it won't make them authentic, believable and reasonable for me.

Thankfully, no one at BIS cares if the Mi48 upsets you or not.

I for one, look forward to flying our new coaxial-rotored overlord.

[FeoFUN 10]

I don't think they are under any sanctions in the year 2035 in the Armaverse.

Emmm, a little misunderstanding here - me and Max, we are talking about the real Iran.

I agree with you on that point.

Nice to hear it - it sounds very reasonable for me too.

[Dingo8 1]

:rolleyes:

[Maio 293]

Not sure if Iran would have more chance vs US even in 50 years. the gape will be always the same.

a present NATO vs IRAN + China (new scenario) conflict would be an hard task for both camps. no need to go 35 years in the futur.

The action takes place in a fictional universe called the ArmAverse. The developers most likely choose to depart from current fictional times in order to avoid repetition induced dementia. "There is no way that would happen in X amount of years" is not a valid argument as real life events do not influence events in the ArmAverse. Anyone using that argument is either in denial and has abandonment issues or a troll.

[FeoFUN 10]

Thankfully, no one at BIS cares if the Mi48 upsets you or not.

Sad, but true - the casuals are ruling the gaming industry and truly deep simulations are losing the battle with them. R6, GR, now the Arma. Sad.

[dm 9]

Sad, but true - the casuals are ruling the gaming industry and truly deep simulations are losing the battle with them. R6, GR, now the Arma. Sad.

Lol, they have some conceptual models. Oh noes the sky is falling!

The underlying simulation is still the same. It could be a stuffed teddybear flying around for all the difference the visual model makes...

[cychou 11]

The action takes place in a fictional universe called the ArmAverse. The developers most likely choose to depart from current fictional times in order to avoid repetition induced dementia. "There is no way that would happen in X amount of years" is not a valid argument as real life events do not influence events in the ArmAverse. Anyone using that argument is either in denial and has abandonment issues or a troll.

I don't agree at all with the fact to pretend real life events don't influence the OFP/Arma games. why to you think Iran is member of OPFOR so ? because BI perfectly know that these two countries (US/iran) can't be allied, and there is lots of signs of a real conflict in a very near future.

they made the A3 scenario to remain credible with current geostrategic evolutions.

they could have done a pure fictive war between USA and Euroforces for example, which would be very interesting for big symetric battles, but it wouldn't have the least credibility concerning scenario.

Edited May 10, 2012 by cychou

[FeoFUN 10]

Lol, they have some conceptual models. Oh noes the sky is falling!

The main problem is that some of these 'conceptual models' are basing on misconceptions and poor, perfunctory knowledge about the real weapon systems, their history and trends. It's ok for casuals, but not for the real military enthusiasts, who more or less competent how the real stuff is working and developing.

The underlying simulation is still the same. It could be a stuffed teddybear flying around for all the difference the visual model makes...

And this is the second problem - lack of the simulation depth. I'd prefer to see the further increasing of the level of realism, first of all in the aspect of the real weapon systems, their functionality, visual and physical models, operational procedures.

[Smurf 12]

Oh well... the topic just hit that "loop point" again. Always the same BS, same arguments, same replies, different people.

Thats how the game gonna be, get over it, sit crying in a dark corner and wait for a replacement mod for the (only?) not real (but plausible) weapon in the game.

[cychou 11]

The main problem is that some of these 'conceptual models' are basing on misconceptions and poor, perfunctory knowledge about the real weapon systems, their history and trends. It's ok for casuals, but not for the real military enthusiasts, who more or less competent how the real stuff is working and developing.

And this is the second problem - lack of the simulation depth. I'd prefer to see the further increasing of the level of realism, first of all in the aspect of the real weapon systems, their functionality, visual and physical models, operational procedures.

same opinion for me.

---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 PM ----------

Oh well... the topic just hit that "loop point" again. Always the same BS, same arguments, same replies, different people.

Thats how the game gonna be, get over it, sit crying in a dark corner and wait for a replacement mod for the (only?) not real (but plausible) weapon in the game.

there is lots of fictive weapons and vehicles, just compare A3 to their Real counterparts, 50% of them are "inspired" but not the same.

this is due to the future scenario concept, which is just an excuse to include fancy stuffs.

there is no place for imagination in a serious mil sim.

Edited May 10, 2012 by cychou