Is Arma 3 authentic?

[FeoFUN 10]

what is that way? well "that way" is how the mh-6 handles in real life, being as accurately as possible recreated in arma.how do i come to this conclusion and what criteria? its called TKOH and physx.

The PhysX, by itself, is just a beautiful acronym and will give you NOTHING, if you don't have the proper physical and functional model, based on the flight and telemetrics data of the real prototype. Of course, the ARMA series isn't(and no need to be) that precise as DCS:Ka-50, with its crazy detailed and pretty realistic flight model, developed with the help of the Kamov design-bureau and real pilots of Ka-50 from Torzhok Center of Combat Application of Army Aviation.

But, as i've said before(on example of the Ka-52 functional model from A2), there is a number of relatively simple things that could be made - to significantly improve the level of realism.

how do you come to the conclusion that this isnt what "authentically simulated aircraft, vehicles and ships" means? :cool:

Through my own knowledge about the engineering, real helicopters and weapon systems...and after the 33 years of life in the family where the both parents are aviation engineers. :cool:

[Ragid1 1]

This game looks great.

[slatts 1978]

The PhysX, by itself, is just a beautiful acronym and will give you NOTHING, if you don't have the proper physical model

physx gives us nothing? have you not seen the videos of the tanks and boats hitting objects? TKOH flight model will most likely be implemented for helicopters.

Through my own knowledge about the engineering, real helicopters and weapon systems...and after the 33 years of life in the family where the both parents are aviation engineers. :cool:

so you know what BIS are going to do for a game because you read about helicopters? that makes so much sense..

[FeoFUN 10]

physx gives us nothing? have you not seen the videos of the tanks and boats hitting objects?TKOH flight model will most likely be implemented for helicopters.

^Nonsense. I think i must learn a little more about the dynamic flight models. More, than just a beautiful acronyms. For you, the PhysX is a some sort of the magic wand, but it's just an engine, that need the proper and detailed physical/functional model of the simulated object.

so you know what BIS are going to do for a game because you read about helicopters? that makes so much sense..

BIS may do whatever they want, but call it 'accurate' and 'authentic' isn't fair. Fictional - that's the word.

[froggyluv 2136]

BIS may do whatever they want, but call it 'accurate' and 'authentic' isn't fair. Fictional - that's the word.

Your damn right it ain't fair! You know I was walking thru NYC the other day and I saw a store that said "WORLDS BEST PIZZA!" so I just had to buy it. Only, it wasn't the best pizza -they lied man, lied! :cry:

Dude it's a fucking video game -you do realise this no? Getting this uptight about their wording choice is really only making you look, erhm, a little bad....

[Maio 293]

Feofun I admire your passion for realism, however the fact that you are still arguing over the helo mater is funny. Bringing up what the promotional text says about the vehicles in Arma 3 despite the fact that you claim you played the old games in the series and by playing them you know that at no point they were intended as simulators of any of the branches of participating armed forces and then claim that ArmA 3 is departing from it's roots (sandbox game) makes you look like you have no logic skills or.. a troll.

You claim that both your parents are aviation engineers. Are you sure that your deep connection with Russian aviation is not making you overlook the fact that your are throwing a hissy fit over the whole helo matter? I'd say take 2 steps back and overlook your arguments, because at this point you are either seen as a troll or as an head strong fool.

Does anyone else get the felling the thread is spiraling/spiraled out of control :o ?

Edited May 12, 2012 by Maio
Toast

[FeoFUN 10]

Feofun I admire your passion for realism, however the fact that you are still arguing over the helo mater is funny. Bringing up what the promotional text says about the vehicles in Arma 3 despite the fact that you claim you played the old games in the series and by playing them you know that at no point they were intended as simulators of any of the branches of participating armed forces and then claim that ArmA 3 is departing from it's roots (sandbox game) makes you look like you have no logic skills or.. a troll.

You claim that both your parents are aviation engineers. Are you sure that your deep connection with Russian aviation is not making you overlook the fact that your are throwing a hissy fit over the whole helo matter? I'd say take 2 steps back and overlook your arguments, because at this point you are either seen as a troll or as an head strong fool.

Does anyone else get the felling the thread is spiraling/spiraled out of control :o ?

Looks like you have too much of maionaze and too little brains in your head. Next time, try to bring something more solid and intelligent into discussion about the authenticity and accuracy of the combat simulations. Until that, GTFO.

[slatts 1978]

classic internet discussion....poke fun at people who disagree with you.

[Grey-Legolas 10]

Depressing phrases detected

Cheer up guys, have an icecream!

Edited May 12, 2012 by Grey-Legolas

[FeoFUN 10]

classic internet discussion....poke fun at people who disagree with you.

I'm not poking the people who have something more in their argumentation, than 'troll' and 'fool'. He started it - he deserved it.

Edited May 12, 2012 by FeoFUN

[slatts 1978]

. He started it - he deserved it.

hahaha

i dunno man....that just took me back to my school days

[purepassion 22]

FeoFun, this "discussion" has been around for many times. Everything was said already twice.

You don't want Arma to be ruined into an arcade shooter? It's no going to happen.

You want to dictate what vehicles they use in their game? It's not going to happen.

If you start this again here or post any more insults, I will be forced to close the thread which will be really sad.

I advise you to think about this and then make a decision for yourself but I dare you to start this all over again! You already surpassed the point where I and many others see themselfes committed to post any more answers or waste any energy in trying to show you again and again what has already been said.

Arma 3 is Arma 3. It is a tactical shooter game. You like it? Buy it! Don't like it? Don't buy it! Wait for ACE3? Wait for ACE3! Want a dull simulator? Buy VSB2!

Do not come back here with the same stuff! And do not try to dodge this by picking up other comments!

Edited May 12, 2012 by PurePassion
Make the decision and stop right here!

[instagoat 133]

I can´t believe people are still going on about this. Doesn´t this get tiring at some point? How can it be so important to you that you keep returning again and again, with all the same arguments? I´ve spent lots of time trying to respond to this ever since the announcement of Arma, and I am -certainly- tired of this by now.

Kudos for your determination and zeal. I still think it´s supremely silly.

Also, wat, are we resulting to schoolyard arguments now?

[Tonci87 163]

@Feofun, If your parents are aviation engineers, then you should show them the Kajman, maybe then we will get such a helicopter in the future^^

[slatts 1978]

I can´t believe people are still going on about this. Doesn´t this get tiring at some point? How can it be so important to you that you keep returning again and again, with all the same arguments? I´ve spent lots of time trying to respond to this ever since the announcement of Arma, and I am -certainly- tired of this by now.

Kudos for your determination and zeal. I still think it´s supremely silly.

Also, wat, are we resulting to schoolyard arguments now?

yea...i tried to walk away..i just have a need to get my point across lol

---------- Post added at 18:26 ---------- Previous post was at 18:25 ----------

EDIT: "@Feofun, If your parents are aviation engineers, then you should show them the Kajman, maybe then we will get such a helicopter in the future^^"

now wouldnt that be the definition of irony? lol

[instagoat 133]

yea...i tried to walk away..i just have a need to get my point across lol

Same here. The main reason why I return is that I fear that the game will turn into another IL2:COD. And I don´t understand why people keep bringing up rivet-counting arguments as proof that the game is turning into CoD and is unrealistic, while the core that affects how realistic a game is is the game design and coding under the hood is consistently being ignored.

Again, I can make an M16 in Arma 2 fire artillery shells. Would they still say that it´s realistic because the gun happens to be accurately modelled, the muzzle flash has the right shape and the amount of notches on the rails is just right?

How a model looks matters -zero-. You could put a box there and name it "Mi-28". What makes that realistic is how accurately the thing is modelled, code wise. The models are a nice bonus for immersion. If you can´t suspend your disbelief enough to accept the existence of a fictional helicopter in a near future setting, and enjoy the game (and the MUCH more realistic mods that will inevitably arrive.) for what it is, I think you´re taking this a little too seriously.

It´s almost as if we´re arguing ideology or religion here, and not the content of a game.

[slatts 1978]

....

hehe...i remember making a skoda 105 fire a minigun from the front of it :D fun times

[Maio 293]

Well to be honest there is something about his posts that make me reply most of the time. His zeal is so appealing :p

BTW pure add the SDV to the list ;)

[slatts 1978]

Well to be honest there is something about his posts that make me reply most of the time. His zeal is so appealing :p

BTW pure add the SDV to the list ;)

the sexual tension....ooooft

[max power 21]

Remember when it was fun to talk about what sorts of gadgets were represented in a game, and where the possible inspirations for near futuristic things came from, and not like forcing your forehead into a spinning drill? I blame DCS :p

FeoFUN and Maionaze

There is no reason to get personal about this. I just want to paraphrase an exchange to illustrate the ridiculousness.

"I think you're either stupid or just here to wind people up."

"I think your brain is full of egg whites and vinegar."

Quality discussion we have on these forums.

At this point I am against closing the discussion but I am not against deleting posts, reducing post counts, or handing out infractions. Let's keep it civil, please.

§1) No Flaming/Flame-baiting/bigotry

Abusive, racist, sexist, homophobic comments (or any other type of bigotry), personal attacks and name calling are not allowed either on the forum or through PM's. If you receive a PM that is abusive or you find offensive please forward it to a moderator who will investigate.

Flame-baiting is also not tolerated; flame-baiting is making a post to someone that is obviously intended to elicit an angry response. Mocking/teasing/ridiculing someone or the point someone wants to make is also flamebaiting. This also applies to other areas of the forums such as leaving visitor messages on people's profiles, messages posted in social groups, as well as quoting someone against their wishes in your signature to belittle/tease/mock them. If someone asks you to remove something they posted on the forum from your signature you must remove it. Common sense tells you that posting someone's PMs without permission is also flamebaiting and will be punished.

[FeoFUN 10]

If you start this again here or post any more insults

I didn't dictate anything. And please, can you warn the people like Maionaze from their manner of discussion with a name calling and personal insults? Then everything will just fine and polite. If you didn't notice, i prefer to back my point of view with the facts and knowledge, than with a name calling and insults.

[slatts 1978]

so its OK for you to name call, but not for him? just to be clear is all.

[Steakslim 1]

Will you guys cut this shit out. ALL OF YOU. Fucking bickering and finger-pointing.

[daellis94 1]

I just have to ask... Why is it that so much of what is being said here, and I don't mean to bash the people that say it, amounts to "The Armaverse is fictional, so we can make fictional scenarios and change up aspects of the real world beyond what realism, but because it's a fictional game it's still authentic."? That just doesn't make sense to me. I mean, I suppose Arma II had a similar problem with the setting of a made-up ex-Soviet country called "Chernarus," but really everything else about that game was fine. The US and Russian forces were realistic, as were those of the CDF and the Chedaki, as well as the Insurgents, despite the fact that their homeland was made-up.

Aside from my earlier problems with what has been seen of Arma III so far, mainly the rail-gun, whose use I still have a nerdy, wrathful vendetta against, as well as the Iranian use of what appears to just be Israeli gear (not even copied rip-offs of gear, just straight up captured gear) on active front-line troops, although I have forgiven the use of the textured Merkava since it has been said the Iranian tank simply isn't finished yet, I still have to point out the problem storyline. Granted, this surely stemmed from the simple decision of pitting NATO against Iran in the next Arma game. I assume BIS then had to throw together an excuse plot which would allow NATO and Iran to go toe-to-toe. That I understand and forgive.

My problem..... it really doesn't seem like they did a very good job, regardless of whether they put a lot of effort into the task or not. Maybe it was inevitable that Iran would have to go through Turkey, but the circumstances surrounding NATO's sudden incompetence are a bit hard to swallow. First off, how does Russia go about rebuilding most of the former Eastern Bloc using nations which we know, judging by fairly blatant political and diplomatic positions, would certainly NOT align with the Russian Federation? The Baltic States are really not very happy with Russia. Despite Russian political influences spawned during the days of the Soviet Union, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are happy to be held under NATO's wing, having their armed forces trained and reorganized by more powerful Western states. Poland is most definitely not a friend of Russia. It has spent the past 100 years being carved up and occupied by both of its next-door neighbors: Germany and Russia. Meanwhile, Poland has extremely good relations with the United States, due in part to a very large Polish population in America. Why Poland would turn against NATO, an alliance it seems to be very determined to be a part of, is difficult to explain.

Not quite as extreme, but Slovenia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Albania, Hungary, and Romania have just left NATO, but remained friendly, which begs the question of why they didn't just stay in NATO in the first place, which has been a beneficial organization for those countries since they joined and up to the present, and damn sure be a nice alliance in a situation like Cold War II. BIS tries to explain why Greece left as well, but frankly Greece leaving the EU and leaving NATO shouldn't be very connected. The EU doesn't have much to do with NATO, so an economic crisis wouldn't necessarily get Greece mad enough to leave NATO. But more importantly....

Hey, Slovakia and Bulgaria! Where the hell do you get off? Honestly though, why would these nations leave NATO for Russia's corner? Have we forgotten how displeased so many of these countries are with their treatment by the Soviets?

Honestly, the only country likely to align with Russia is Belarus, which really, really likes Russia, politically speaking. As I understand, Belarus even wanted to try uniting with Russia a little while back, but apparently that never went through. Aside form that, Ukraine MIGHT be swayed to join Russia. Generally, Ukraine is getting friendlier and friendlier with NATO, and already conducts exercises with NATO forces. Some of Ukraine's newest equipment was designed with technology given by NATO. However, Russia retains some influence in the region by acting as the major source of natural gas, which gives the bear quite some leverage, especially with the Ukrainians.

We are always forgetting that Russia is not actually powerful enough to challenge NATO. Not anymore. They have quite a lot of firepower, but the Russian population is dropping, Russia's sphere of influence has been shaved substantially, and economically, if Russia were to try a military buildup reminiscent of the 1980's, they would find themselves in the same problems they did at the end of the Cold War. Despite everything, Russia is, economically, unable to match the capital the West can put into its armed forces.

That said, I would be complaining about the loss of Turkey, and how could NATO have failed to send overwhelming force into Turkey, a long time ally, as soon as Iran starting moving over the border, but I have to accept at this point that there is little other way to get Arma III on a small island (i.e. the game won't be a massive war game and won't play through like a Bruce Willis movie) with Iran fighting NATO unless said island is in the Aegean.

[slatts 1978]

...

The armaverse is somewhat based on reality, mainly the recession. many countries have reduced their armies size (take a look at the UK armed forces right now)

oil/gas is in short supply, with the EU is bad shape, many east european countries left for russian oil. remember they arent part of russia, just not in the EU/NATO. it may sound odd now, but who nows how far south the EU goes. Ireland has been kissing Chinas arse alot lately, more then the EU

in a world there oil is short supply, Iran has a good bit, them becoming powerful isnt far fetched at all

as for turkey, like i said, NATO is downsized, america is too busy with china. (i think i read nato has already fought iran? they could also be severely battered by that and able to rescue turkey)