Is Arma 3 authentic?

[celery 8]

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

[maddogx 13]

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

Gentlemen, I think we've found our quote of the year... :rolleyes:

[Maio 293]

I have an idea... why don't the mods lock the thread :) As Smurf said... it's looping. If Pure wants to add something to the list he can ask for a temporary unlock.

[onlyrazor 11]

Actually, that's a great idea. Let's go find some mods.

[fraczek 4]

edit - deleted to not feed the trolls. please remove.

[slatts 1978]

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.

this game was never a vehicle sim, vehicles merely increase the feel of the game. the game has been more of a tactics sim.

also, you keep banging on about the havocs FCS..well in case you are blind, this isnt the mi-28

[max power 21]

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.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the Iran of 2035... All I'm saying is they already do take existing things and copy them and / or mash them up. I was saying that to suppose that the Mi-48 was maybe not a Mil helicopter but rather something made by Panha (or some other company) in the armaverse. This talk about airframe stress or the details of why they do it is pretty much up to BI's designers.

[myshaak 0]

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.

Yes, that's why the original OFP failed so badly - because the game featured unrealistic equipment! Bizon submachinegun in times of Cold War? AK-47 having 3-round burst mode? BLASPHEMY!

[FeoFUN 10]

Yes, that's why the original OFP failed so badly - because the game featured unrealistic equipment! Bizon submachinegun in times of Cold War? AK-47 having 3-round burst mode? BLASPHEMY!

Are you seriously comparing the wrong additional fire mode with the completely fictional helicopter or tank?! The OFP was the first experience of BI in making such a game - that's why such a little mismatches were excusable in that time. But there was a significant progress of realism after the OFP, in A1/A2. Now we see a significant regress in realism aspect.

[slatts 1978]

Now we see a significant regress in realism aspect.

one helicopter means the whole game is now not tactically realistic?....

[FeoFUN 10]

I'm not sure what that has to do with the Iran of 2035... All I'm saying is they already do take existing things and copy them and / or mash them up. I was saying that to suppose that the Mi-48 was maybe not a Mil helicopter but rather something made by Panha (or some other company) in the armaverse. This talk about airframe stress or the details of why they do it is pretty much up to BI's designers.

I answered to this your statement.

Why would they develop the Panha 2091 if it was not an improvement on the Ah-1T? I think you think I was saying that they are making better equipment than the west. That is not true. Modernizing designs from the 70s would categorically be considered an improvement, however.

As you can see, there is no fictional Iran'2035 in it - only the real one. And the real helicopter - iranian copy of the good old Bell Cobra.

[Ian560 10]

one helicopter means the whole game is now not tactically realistic?....

It's not just the helicopter, it's everything based on near-future equipment, vehicles and weaponry. I think Cychou explained it perfectly. "There is no place for imagination in a serious mil sim."

But I do agree we should stop complaining about this issue...BIS already started, no turning back now, even though I am disappointed, it's time to give it up and just wait for the demo...Nothing we can at this point.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Ian560

[onlyrazor 11]

"There is no place for imagination in a serious mil sim."

There should be some sort of word filter that would automatically turn that quote into FPDR. Arma is first and foremost a game. The military simulation aspect is only one part of it. If you think imagination should be kept out of Arma games, say goodbye to Sahrani, Chernarus, Takistan and the OFP islands.

[PuFu 4591]

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

http://i.imgur.com/g0AfP.gif

[slatts 1978]

It's not just the helicopter, it's everything based on near-future equipment, vehicles and weaponry. I think Cychou explained it perfectly. "There is no place for imagination in a serious mil sim."

But I do agree we should stop complaining about this issue...BIS already started, no turning back now, even though I am disappointed, it's time to give it up and just wait for the demo...Nothing we can at this point.

did you even fucking read the first post of this thread?

[froggyluv 2130]

There should be some sort of word filter that would automatically turn that quote into FPDR. Arma is first and foremost a game. The military simulation aspect is only one part of it. If you think imagination should be kept out of Arma games, say goodbye to Sahrani, Chernarus, Takistan and the OFP islands.

QFT. We finally geta real location and now look at all of the complaints.... Also please add a "rivet counter is present" alarm for these threads. Could save many of us from reading countless pages of "....". Also the comparison to dumbed down R6/GR series is false - those were major gameplay downgrades not just presumptive future weaponry.

[FeoFUN 10]

one helicopter means the whole game is now not tactically realistic?....

I told it many times before - your tactics is dictated by your weapons and their REAL abilities, functionality, physical/visual/damage/operational models. It would be better to implement the Mi-28N(M) or Ka-52/50-2 with some improvements in realism aspect, as FCS functionality, weapons and pilotage characteristics, than create such an unrealistic "chimera" as Mi-48 is, with the only excuse of 'a fictional universe'.

For example, Ka-52 in A2, its sensors and ATGMs are working not very realistic, that lead to ability to implement the completely unrealistic tactics, that real Ka-52 can't implement at all because of restrictions on the number of launched missiles at once and allowed maneuvers after the launch, until the missile(s) hit the target. It's not that hard to further improve the Ka-52, its weapons and equipment - fix some mismatches in its visual model, make its FCS and ATGMs working properly, with simple but realistic restrictions on the fire channels and launching procedures.

This can improve the realism and make the different types of helicopters/ATGM's really different and realistic.

Edited May 10, 2012 by FeoFUN

[PuFu 4591]

I told it many times before - your tactics is dictated by your weapons and their REAL abilities, functionality, physical/visual/damage/operational models. It would be better to implement the Mi-28N(M) or Ka-52/50-2 with some improvements in realism aspect, as FCS functionality, weapons and pilotage characteristics, than create such an unrealistic "chimera" as Mi-48 is, with the only excuse of 'a fictional universe'.

For example, Ka-52 in A2, its sensors and ATGMs are working not very realistically, that lead to ability to implement the completely unrealistic tactics, that real Ka-52 can't implement at all because of restrictions on the number of launched missiles at once. It's not that hard to further improve the Ka-52, its weapons and equipment - fix some mismatches in its visual model, make its FCS and ATGMs working properly, with simple but realistic restrictions on the fire channels and launching procedures. This can improve the realism and make the different types of ATGM really different and realistic.

You still didn't answer the question....instead you went your way to express something completely different.

[slatts 1978]

I told it many times before - your tactics is dictated by your weapons and their REAL abilities, functionality, physical/visual/damage/operational models. It would be better to implement the Mi-28N(M) or Ka-52/50-2 with some improvements in realism aspect, as FCS functionality, weapons and pilotage characteristics, than create such an unrealistic "chimera" as Mi-48 is, with the only excuse of 'a fictional universe'.

the only excuse is the armaverse? not really, you've also got 20 years to make a new FCS to fire those missiles

just because the nose looks like a MI-28, doesnt make it the same. Case in point..the steyr AUG

would you say this is a steyr AUG? http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c294/-GuNuT-/Bullpup/DSCN1932.jpg

some people might call it that..but its not..its a copy

my point? dont look into what you see too much

[maturin 12]

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

I assumed people were quoting this because someone had made a sarcastic, ironic comment.

Congratulations on surprising me.

Anyhow, ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A is the death of franchise.

[FeoFUN 10]

the only excuse is the armaverse? not really, you've also got 20 years to make a new FCS to fire those missiles

As i said before, in Armaverse the engineers are very stupid. Such a fantasies don't add the realism - because they're not logical and realistic. It's just another poor excuse.

just because the nose looks like a MI-28, doesnt make it the same. Case in point..the steyr AUG would you say this is a steyr AUG?

Yeah, it looks like nose-cone of RC-guidance antenna, but it isn't antenna. These ATGM's looks like a Vikhr, but it isn't the Vikhr. Poor excuses for the poor creativity, i'd say.

my point? dont look into what you see too much

And that's a problem with the modern society and gaming industry - people are getting stupid, they don't want to think and look at things deeply. Sad, but true.

---------- Post added at 09:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 PM ----------

You still didn't answer the question....instead you went your way to express something completely different.

I did.

your tactics is dictated by your weapons and their REAL abilities, functionality, physical/visual/damage/operational models.

...that lead to ability to implement the completely unrealistic tactics, that real Ka-52 can't implement at all because of restrictions on the number of launched missiles at once and allowed maneuvers after the launch, until the missile(s) hit the target...

Edited May 10, 2012 by FeoFUN

[slatts 1978]

history is repeating between me and you feoFUN...therefore im not gonna bother anymore trying to get you to realise that this is not the MI-28...

[froggyluv 2130]

And that's a problem with the modern society and gaming industry - people are getting stupid, they don't want to think and look at things deeply. Sad, but true.

Yes yes, good point! Fictitious helocopters in video games are without a doubt the landmark milestone of the fall of civilization. :rolleyes:

[max power 21]

I answered to this your statement.

As you can see, there is no fictional Iran'2035 in it - only the real one. And the real helicopter - iranian copy of the good old Bell Cobra.

Unfortunately, that's not the context that the statement was made in. I was replying to someone else saying that Iran can't make better equipment than modern western equipment. Coincidentally, that statement was also taking what I was saying out of context.

[myshaak 0]

Are you seriously comparing the wrong additional fire mode with the completely fictional helicopter or tank?! The OFP was the first experience of BI in making such a game - that's why such a little mismatches were excusable in that time. But there was a significant progress of realism after the OFP, in A1/A2. Now we see a significant regress in realism aspect.

Yes, I am, seriously. Because OFP was set in the past, so, by your undefeatable logic, it must have been incredibly easy to recreate all equipment from that era, thus achieving "total milsim realistic authentic training tool yeah." Yet they didn't. They did it to ballance stuff. For fun. And the world didn't collapse. Nor did the players refused to buy the game because the developers made only 3 crew positions in some tanks, where there should have been 4 (oh, the horror!) or that they severely limited the firepower of some tanks because, due to technical limitations, OFP only supported one gunner per vehicle.

And significant regress? Seriously? Where? Did I miss BIS announcing that they are dropping features?