Is Arma 3 authentic?

[UltimateBawb 1]

So the current limitation is bullets fired vs. framerate?

[jgbtl292 0]

So the current limitation is bullets fired vs. framerate?

yes

create a few bullets per frame with appropriate dispersion, problem solved.

same was my idea - the same for the catlings ;)

[-Gews- 1]

Still need to fix the missing guns on the Merkava.

^You can see the empty mount, there should be a .50 cal in there!

Edited December 3, 2013 by Goose

[scrim 1]

Yep. Should also be things like a mortar and a cargo compartment large enough for ten soldiers, but I suppose the devs reckoned actually making the Merkava true to life would make it OP.

Of course it should also have a Trophy active protection system, but I decided to only cover the very easy to do parts.

[chortles 263]

Isn't it the case that there's a direct inverse correlation between gun ammo and passenger capacity?

[paecmaker 23]

Still need to fix the missing guns on the Merkava.

http://i.imgur.com/jXVQCrT.jpg?1

I guess its actually a balance thing. The merkava got no coax turret but can transport several soldier so I guess they thought having both troop transports and coax turrets would be to op(and with the future setting they have the artistic freedom to change stuff like that.)

I guess you have to rely on mods for turrets/mortars and extra stuff for the merkava.

[scrim 1]

Future setting doesn't really give them the artistic freedom to take something that exists today, and downgrade it to where it was several decades ago.

I.e. future setting for current vehicle =/= make vehicle older than it is today.

[-Gews- 1]

The Merkava should only be able to hold a couple soldiers, more passengers = less ammunition.

"The Merkava can carry 6 passengers, one for each 12 rounds of main gun ammunition removed."

[progamer 14]

"And the rest is mainly about balancing countermeasures on several levels – armies, units, their strengths and weaknesses. If you compare for example the Ifrit with the Hunter (faster, but less resistant), they are quite different, but still balanced - even in 1-on-1 engagements. The Red and Green armies aren't just a plain mirror of each other, but the conflict isn't as asymmetric as it used to be for example in Arrowhead."

"Each army should have weak points and strengths. Even more so for the ‘Green’ army (Beta leak). We still think that all sides should be distinguishable yet balanced."[/i]

http://www.arma3.com/news/report-in-petr-kolar-encoding

There's your answer to why the sides are so similar, the lack of caliber types. Looks like a hardcore balanced game that doesn't follow real life.

[chortles 263]

Do you purposefully make it a habit to come off as really, really late to the party when it comes to Report In! Q&A's?

[roshnak 41]

Future setting doesn't really give them the artistic freedom to take something that exists today, and downgrade it to where it was several decades ago.

I.e. future setting for current vehicle =/= make vehicle older than it is today.

Well that's probably why the tank is inspired by the Merkava, and not the Merkava itself.

[NeuroFunker 11]

"And the rest is mainly about balancing countermeasures on several levels – armies, units, their strengths and weaknesses. If you compare for example the Ifrit with the Hunter (faster, but less resistant), they are quite different, but still balanced - even in 1-on-1 engagements. The Red and Green armies aren't just a plain mirror of each other, but the conflict isn't as asymmetric as it used to be for example in Arrowhead."

"Each army should have weak points and strengths. Even more so for the ‘Green’ army (Beta leak). We still think that all sides should be distinguishable yet balanced."[/i]

http://www.arma3.com/news/report-in-petr-kolar-encoding

There's your answer to why the sides are so similar, the lack of caliber types. Looks like a hardcore balanced game that doesn't follow real life.

well, arma 3 is not a simulator anymore, if you wonder.

[progamer 14]

Do you purposefully make it a habit to come off as really, really late to the party when it comes to Report In! Q&A's?

Just having a source that some people may not know about to back up my statements.

---------- Post added at 01:19 ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 ----------

Well that's probably why the tank is inspired by the Merkava, and not the Merkava itself.

So it's the future, let's downgrade our army for a war! The whole future thing does seem lazy in some points but BI does fix things to be more like the real life version so think of it as the real world weapon but with a different designation.

[-Gews- 1]

Well that's probably why the tank is inspired by the Merkava, and not the Merkava itself.

It's a Merkava as much as the Strv 122 is a Leopard.

And still doesn't explain why there is an empty mount waiting for a machine gun right above the barrel... as well, the early screens showed a roof-mounted remote-controlled MG, so it seems someone made a decision to remove it.

Only having a coaxial (and a 6.5mm at that) is madness. I don't think there are any modern tanks that follow that configuration and there is no reason for such a vehicle design decision.

[Smurf 12]

That same pic shows a up-armored Merkava.

That and railguns may be part of the ADAPTation for new battles? :j:

[2nd ranger 282]

That Merkava version looked badass with the extra armour and the darker paint job. Not to mention the fifty.

[-Gews- 1]

That same pic shows a up-armored Merkava.

That and railguns may be part of the ADAPTation for new battles? :j:

Which begs the question, why did they remove the ERA tiles and the gun?

Maybe because people would complain about non-functional ERA?

Or perhaps because the Slammer/Merkava uses passive armor? Possibly integrated ERA?

Or maybe someone just preferred the "clean" look?

But there is no reason to only have one machine gun on a modern tank. Hopefully they are adding an extra one in a future patch, or two even.

Anyways it's too bad the Merkava/Slammer currently lacks a fully-featured FCS, barrel-launched ATGMs, the 60mm mortar, a remote gun station on the turret roof and a .50 caliber over the barrel, as well as the Trophy active defence system... I find it hard to believe tanks in the 2030s would be less capable than those of the 2000s :j:

And anyways, I have seen people saying "it's not a Merkava, just based on one, the developers wanted it different" etc, etc. And my question is: so what? why not add the features that are missing? What is the downside to it? Does anyone seriously WANT the tank to only have one MG?

[chortles 263]

I'd point to how BI wasn't giving us "a fully-featured FCS" or "the Trophy active defence system" in Arma 2 either... though I get you re: the weapons.

[-Gews- 1]

I'd point to how BI wasn't giving us "a fully-featured FCS" or "the Trophy active defence system" in Arma 2 either... though I get you re: the weapons.

Yup, didn't expect that kind of thing either (although the T-90 did have guided missiles)

However it's something for ArmA to aspire to, rather than keeping the game functionally the same, the depth and fidelity of the simulation should also improve with each installment as well.

[Smurf 12]

Which begs the question, why did they remove the ERA tiles and the gun?

I hope the answer for that and many other type of questions is: Because the game is not complete yet.

Mayber after WIN? At least that is what I am hoping for.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Smurf

[slatts 1978]

I'd agree the gun should come back. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over small details like ERA plates.

[progamer 14]

I'd agree the gun should come back. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over small details like ERA plates.

It's a 12.7mm anti technical weapon. When it comes back, I would like to see it be the correct weapon.

[slatts 1978]

It's a 12.7mm anti technical weapon. When it comes back, I would like to see it be the correct weapon.

I'm well aware of what the weapon is.

[fusion13 11]

Really nice work! Must of took sometime to do amazing!

[roshnak 41]

I'd point to how BI wasn't giving us "a fully-featured FCS" or "the Trophy active defence system" in Arma 2 either... though I get you re: the weapons.

I would think that people would want Arma 3 to have more features than Arma 2.

Now, I know that it actually does have more features, but my point is that "that stuff wasn't in Arma 2" isn't a reason to not hope it will be in Arma 3. As for the missing weapons and ERA, I can only assume removing them was a conscious design decision, since they were clearly already implemented at some earlier point.