Is Arma 3 authentic?

[slatts 1978]

It's been flawed since A2. I think they are still using the old prototype model (I personally cannot tell, just going from what others on this forum have mentioned). I know RKSL was all over that back when it was getting released.

the biggest difference i can see between the X-35B and F-35B is just behind the cockpit, looks bigger and flatter on the F-35B

[max power 21]

the F-35B entry in this thread and in the game is very flawed. posting a thread atm to show why.

Yep, we know that it's the x-35b. No need to make a new thread about it :)

[ulme911 1]

the biggest difference i can see between the X-35B and F-35B is just behind the cockpit, looks bigger and flatter on the F-35B

the differences are a lot bigger than that. just wait till the moderators approve my thread and you'll see.

I know it may be a lot to ask of them to fix the model but it really is an embarassing mistake from a game that is going for a realistic approach. The least they could do is name it properly as X-35..

[Steakslim 1]

Does the ACR have an adjustable gas system? Because regardless, it'd be kinda nice to see the SCAR and the ACR. I wonder if we'll see M4s and M16s since the Greek Army currently has some. Now that I think about it, I wonder what other weapons we'll see, besides the already known weapons.

I believe it does since it too runs a short stroke gas system. Problem with the ACR is in real life, a lot of things went wrong with it, namely Magpul selling the Masada to Bushmaster and Remington (bush for civ models, rem for military). They changed quite a bit of the original design and made it far more expensive for a gun that has had a lot of issues, malfunctions, and quality control problems that resulted in a recall when it was released, and few actual features to warrant the high price they gave it (against the original price range that Magpul was aiming for to be closer to what you'd get with a higher end AR-15). Supposedly they are fixing the problems, and improving it, but so far it has not lived up to it's hype, nor cost. I doubt we'll see it in game either as it never passed any trials or even came close to being procured by any military (that I've read or heard), and currently is more of a $2000 niche rifle if anything on the civ market.

Speaking of Remington, I read recently they procured the military contract to manufacture rifles for the US military, over Colt who's been doing it for many years. Funny enough Colt will still make a shit ton in royalties for every rifle made.

[slatts 1978]

the differences are a lot bigger than that. just wait till the moderators approve my thread and you'll see.

I know it may be a lot to ask of them to fix the model but it really is an embarassing mistake from a game that is going for a realistic approach. The least they could do is name it properly as X-35..

i know its really the X-35, from what i heard, the model was made before the current model was widely known, hopefully they update it

[daellis94 1]

Alright, a couple of things.

First off, why is Iran using Isreali military gear? That is just silly. I mean, sure they could have captured it but the US captured plenty of Germany's FlaK 18/36/41 88mm AA/AT guns in World War Two, and we never started making them even though they were definitely superior.

Second, why do both NATO and Iran use the Merkava line MBT? NATO has its own tanks, in many cases better tanks, and for the same reasons as the above silliness, Iran shouldn't be using the Merkava either. It is Israeli. Americans should be using the M-1A3 Abrams, or perhaps a later Abrams or a new tank altogether, and other NATO countries their respective MBT. Not the Merkava.

Onto another tank related issue, what the hell are railguns doing on a tank in 2035? Rail guns are such an experimental technology there's no way we're going to get them on tanks by then, and probably only at that time will we start to see them on naval vessels. Seriously, for the modern and near future periods, railguns will be impractical to the point of being near impossible to put on tanks. First of all, where does the energy come from? Batteries? Good luck. The fact is, until we make massive advances in railgun technology, mainly toward addressing energy storage and efficiency issues, railguns cannot be put on tanks. That BI went to such Star Wars-esque decisions here is somewhat disappointing. A plot rather heavy on suspension of disbelief I can stomach. Lack of realistic equipment distribution, well, I guess I can stomach that as well.... but so many little issues at once. I honestly expected better of this. I'm still sure as hell going to buy the game, but I fear there will be a great many thorns in my side.

[myshaak 0]

Aaaaaand here we go again. First of all, welcome to the forums. Secondly, you should lurk more before posting, chances are that someone has voiced the same concerns (in this case, multiple times, every single one). Browse through this very thread, you will see.

[daellis94 1]

Even the rail gun issue?

Yes, I now notice that previous concerns have been voiced, so no use throwing them back into the fire, but the rail guns, as well? I didn't see those. I mean, the concept of a rail gun is perhaps not my biggest issue, but what it could mean for game play with those tanks could be pretty disappointing, considering a rail gun on any predictable tank between now and at least 2050 would yield an armored vehicle capable of penetrating even the thickest frontal armor of any tank on a battlefield at any LOS range out to 5 klicks or more, no problem. Maybe they won't replicate that to 100% realism, in which case god help NATO and everyone it associates with, but even if they existed to make a significantly more powerful tank, I just wouldn't feel quite as good about the game.

Also, thank you, I feel welcomed :)

[max power 21]

the differences are a lot bigger than that. just wait till the moderators approve my thread and you'll see.

I know it may be a lot to ask of them to fix the model but it really is an embarassing mistake from a game that is going for a realistic approach. The least they could do is name it properly as X-35..

For the reasons discussed above, it will not be approved.

I guess since the F-35 entered service before 2009 in the ArmAversum, it didn't go through its lengthy process of design changes.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Max Power

[paecmaker 23]

Even the rail gun issue?

Yes, I now notice that previous concerns have been voiced, so no use throwing them back into the fire, but the rail guns, as well? I didn't see those. I mean, the concept of a rail gun is perhaps not my biggest issue, but what it could mean for game play with those tanks could be pretty disappointing, considering a rail gun on any predictable tank between now and at least 2050 would yield an armored vehicle capable of penetrating even the thickest frontal armor of any tank on a battlefield at any LOS range out to 5 klicks or more, no problem. Maybe they won't replicate that to 100% realism, in which case god help NATO and everyone it associates with, but even if they existed to make a significantly more powerful tank, I just wouldn't feel quite as good about the game.

Also, thank you, I feel welcomed :)

Believe me, the railgun has been covered in many posts and probably several threads(which got closed due to the flamestorms)

(See if you can find the OMG future weapons thread and start reading :p )

[liquidpinky 11]

Believe me, the railgun has been covered in many posts and probably several threads(which got closed due to the flamestorms)

(See if you can find the OMG future weapons thread and start reading :p )

I put my hands up to some of it, I have my doubts about the practicalities of Railguns like Daellis94 as the power supply would be the problem and not the actual delivery system.

However, the Railgun fitted tank in A3 may be either rare or even a one off though.

Isn't Limnos meant to be some sort of R&D facility that we are infiltrating in the SP campaign?

[ProfTournesol 956]

Of course, everybody knows what weapon will be available in 2035 and what technology will be possible. I can't believe people are still posting their rants here.

[daellis94 1]

Of course, everybody knows what weapon will be available in 2035 and what technology will be possible. I can't believe people are still posting their rants here.

You act as if there is no way to get an idea of what will really be possible. The fact is, rail guns demand such energy, for as far as science knows and can predict for any of the near future, that any capable power source, either via energy storage or direct generation, would have to be far larger than a tank or far too inefficient (in terms of energy storage per volume). Even supposing you could use batteries to store energy to power a railgun, they would take up the majority of the inside of the tank that you would otherwise want to use for ammunition storage, or take up fuel space, or wherever you want to sacrifice space, you have to sacrifice a lot, and you'll still only get enough energy for about one shot, and not one that is especially justifiable given weapons we could have anyway. In 2035, rail guns are for naval vessels, and even then only those with nuclear propulsion, which will not be every vessel in a fleet (nuclear propulsion was deemed far less energy efficient than diesel by the US Navy in the Cold War, so the nuclear fleet was scrapped, sparing only nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers).

No, an alternative weapon for this tank could be, rather than a rail gun system, based on electrothermal-chemical technology, or ETC. This was a technology developed in the late Cold War, when NATO analysts predicted Soviet armor technology being capable of surpassing any existing NATO tank armaments by 1995. So, they decided tanks either needed to start moving toward a 140mm gun, or a more powerful type of weapon. They came up with ETC, which is basically an electrically fired gun, whose general design is very similar to conventional armaments. However, instead of a mechanically activated propellent charge, the ammunition is ignited by a small plasma charge where the percussion cap would be on any other firearm. This would allow the tank's fire-control computers to moderate propellent burn much more efficiently, and would allow for more advance propellents. ETC weapons were estimated to at least double the penetrating ability of tank armaments of equivalent caliber. A prototype gun was built, called the XM-291, which was an ETC version of the 120mm Rheintenmall gun used by the American M-1A1 Abrams and the German Leopard 2. In testing, the XM-291 provided a proof of concept by firing rounds with muzzle energies placed at almost 17 megajoules, roughly equivalent to a low-power 140mm conventional gun. Of course, when the Eastern Bloc collapsed and defense budgets fell worldwide, demand for ETC dissolved, but the technology is sure as hell there.

For those interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrothermal-chemical_technology

[ProfTournesol 956]

20 years ago, i didn't even know what Internet was.

[daellis94 1]

The technology existed, and even then internet was just a large project in communications networks. This is a different feat, though don't misunderstand me to downplay the immensity of what has been acheived through the internet, where there needs to be an advance in physical energy storage and power generation far beyond what has been acheived. Truly, far beyond what we have today, and I don't mean what we have available as stnadard, I mean far beyond our best yet acheived.

[PuFu 4591]

The technology existed, and even then internet was just a large project in communications networks. This is a different feat, though don't misunderstand me to downplay the immensity of what has been acheived through the internet, where there needs to be an advance in physical energy storage and power generation far beyond what has been acheived. Truly, far beyond what we have today, and I don't mean what we have available as stnadard, I mean far beyond our best yet acheived.

1. There is an fiction reality the game is set up in - it is called Armaverse. The point where the things move in a different direction that what you and me have read about/experienced is unknown. It could have been for BIS devs 10 days ago, or 30 years ago. You keep comparing with what is going on today. The game is set 23 years in the future, why the heck you keep coming back with the same post i don't get.

2. Technology during major conflicts sees and exponential grow. Same thing happened in WW2, same with vietnam (although at a smaller scale, since it wasn't the entire world that was focusing only one developing weapons). Is there a functional rail gun TODAY? There is one, yes. Could there be one in 20 years. You say nay, i say you never know.

so, where is your drama?

[slatts 1978]

[Beagle 684]

Of course, everybody knows what weapon will be available in 2035 and what technology will be possible. I can't believe people are still posting their rants here.

The main point is that we have seen the bad impact which the simplified depiction of modern technology had in Armed Assault and even more in ArmA II & OA. From a Multiplayer perspective the old 80's settign of original Opration Flashpoint was simply better when a 3 axis stabilized Gun system was already the most high tech you woud exspect.

One term stands out well for all the trouble...TAB

High Tech is basically O.K. but in that case the MAGIC RADAR has to go away.

Next point is that in the ArmA series there is always to much new hardware...in reality you will find fairly old hardware in every Army even thoug in NATO Armies.

Back in 1995 when I dropped out of servive we still had a high prcentage of combat and support vehicles with chassis dating back to 1968 and 1973...the oldest one a

crane truck was from 1958. The mainstay MBT of the armoured batallions at that time was still the Leopard 1A5.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Beagle

[ProfTournesol 956]

The main point is that we have seen the bad impact which the simplified depiction of modern technology had in Armed Assault and even more in ArmA II & OA. From a Multiplayer perspective the old 80's settign of original Opration Flashpoint was simply better when a 3 axis stabilized Gun system was already the most high tech you woud exspect.

That's why the game is now set in the near future, so there is no point in ranting on "OMG future weapons".

[max power 21]

Hmmm... No. There's nothing really going on in OA that wasn't already present in the 80s except for personal flir sights and UAVs.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Just cross fingers that BIS makes it all flawless working and consistent. Of course some A3 prototypes/demonstrators could have some rough technical edges/teething troubles so players can't fully rely on such "super-hitechweapons". Something more to think + consider about advantages/disadvantages of vehicles, weapons, features etc before using them would be awesome in A3.....

[slatts 1978]

maybe the armour of the railgun tank is weak as its thin to make room for the power generator? ;)

[Beagle 684]

@ Max Power

M113 family vehicles are missing for example for US Army, and those are still widely used.

The russians were missing BMP-1 and BMP-2 and the overal use of MK16 and MK17 instead of M16 and M14MBR is another issue.

[daellis94 1]

I see that Armaverse can be used as an excuse for this game to not be as realistic a shooter as advertized, eh? Yes, fictional universe, but it does not use fictional technology. Railguns are real, they just cannot fit on a tank with any known or theorized power storage, and anything higher yield for power than we could use on such a vehicle would be fusion, as you need nuclear level power for railguns to be at all practical. Sustainable fusion is not likely to come before 2050, and that's from the people trying to develop sustainable fusion.

Just because you can't predict the precise events of the future doesn't mean you can't say, "yeah we probably won't have this by then because we still need all of this technology and we aren't near enough to having it yet." That is done all the time and is completely legitimate. For instance, we will not have efficient interstellar travel by 2035. That makes perfect sense. So, why doesn't it make sense to say, because of vastly insufficient power supply technology, rail guns do not belong on tanks in this game?

I maintain ETC is a much more logical and realistic choice.

[myshaak 0]

I see that Armaverse can be used as an excuse for this game to not be as realistic a shooter as advertized, eh? Yes, fictional universe, but it does not use fictional technology. Railguns are real, they just cannot fit on a tank with any known or theorized power storage, and anything higher yield for power than we could use on such a vehicle would be fusion, as you need nuclear level power for railguns to be at all practical. Sustainable fusion is not likely to come before 2050, and that's from the people trying to develop sustainable fusion.

Just because you can't predict the precise events of the future doesn't mean you can't say, "yeah we probably won't have this by then because we still need all of this technology and we aren't near enough to having it yet." That is done all the time and is completely legitimate. For instance, we will not have efficient interstellar travel by 2035. That makes perfect sense. So, why doesn't it make sense to say, because of vastly insufficient power supply technology, rail guns do not belong on tanks in this game?

I maintain ETC is a much more logical and realistic choice.

When you say "not as realistic shooter as advertised" you are focusing on only one specific part of the game (equipment), more precisely one specific piece of equipment. The game's mechanics will not suffer from allowing BIS to use their imagination a little wilder. You will still have realistic ballistics, you will still die in one shot if hit to the torso or head, you will "take on" a new flight model of (at least?) helicopters... no mechs, no transformers, no magic enemy-revealing compass, no auto-heal. One tank doesn't change the entire game.

When you say railgun tank is not likely to be near possible by 2035 I agree with you. But will it ruin the fun the BI community has had with OFP series since 2001? I don't think so.

For more arguments (pro and contra) check this thread.