Is Arma 3 authentic?

[Dingo8 1]

fly around in an MI-48,

get shot down by a railgun...

Interesting point actually - Railgun projectile velocity is so fast, it should be much easier to hit helicopters compared to chemical based tank shells, as you don't have to compensate for target speed and gravity as much..

[maturin 12]

Yeah, realistic. Like the three round burst AK in OFP. Or the M1A2s for the USMC in A2. Or the Marine/Army mashup US force in Armed assault. Or the russian army using AK-107s. Or the drum-mag RPK-74, also in A2. Or the fact that NO vehicle in any arma game EVER simulated the sighting systems to -any- degree. Do we have a CITV in the A2 Abramses? No. Do we have proper laser rangefinding? No. Do we have properly simulated guided munitions? No. Why? Because it´s OVERKILL for a battlefield simulation like Arma 2.

Cheerio

Ball-ocks.

I'm against this ArmA 3 purism as much as you are, but stop selling the game short. ACE has proven that simulator-level realism is both easily achievable and tons of fun, given the base game we have now. Don't even try to tell me that putting a simple FCS system in a tank is rivet-counting or overkill.

[instagoat 133]

Ball-ocks.

I'm against this ArmA 3 purism as much as you are, but stop selling the game short. ACE has proven that simulator-level realism is both easily achievable and tons of fun, given the base game we have now. Don't even try to tell me that putting a simple FCS system in a tank is rivet-counting or overkill.

Sorry, I worded the statement a little harshly.

I think a basic, properly working FCS (other than the tab-lock system we have right now, which automatically adjusts gun elevation and lead to a locked on target) or a proper interface for the laser designators would be okay. But you can still overmodel these systems... that´s fun to some people, but not everybody. I would be for a scaleable difficulty, like there was in the old IL2. A dedicated difficulty setting menu for all advanced weapons features (enforceable server-side, obviously). Something like that´d be welcome. As long as it doesn´t impact overall quality of the game. We don´t know how many people they have, and what the challenges are, so I´d rather not have them take any chances, and then get the really advanced features step by step trough patches. (Instead of endless bugfixing.)

Again, I apologize if my statement came across wrongly.

[Dragonshot 1]

It's really going to arouse my anger in 2032 if all the various new weapons in Arma3 aren't really being used in the real world, I mean seriously who wants to play a game every day for 20 years only to find out that you have been taken for a ride and ripped-off. If there aren't any railgun tanks in military service by December 31st 2032 I'll be demanding a refund!

[katipo66 94]

This threads great for a lol.

[Black Cat 10]

Doesn't the game happen in 2035?

[CyclonicTuna 87]

It's really going to arouse my anger in 2032 if all the various new weapons in Arma3 aren't really being used in the real world, I mean seriously who wants to play a game every day for 20 years only to find out that you have been taken for a ride and ripped-off. If there aren't any railgun tanks in military service by December 31st 2032 I'll be demanding a refund!

Just because the weapons arn't used doesn't mean they don't excist. If the US can't afford railguns 20 years from now because they never got around shrinking they're national debt doesn't mean they arn't battleready. And maybe they'll be sold, or put in action by other country's.

Remember, where in the Armaverse, an authentic depiction of real world scenrio's that could become reality in the future. We'll be able to fly the RAH-66 Commanche eventough in the real world the programme was canceled. But the programme was completed, and the final design is definetly combat ready.

[Dingo8 1]

I think Dragonshot was sarcastic in that post, CyclonicTuna. :)

[daellis94 1]

Just because the weapons arn't used doesn't mean they don't excist. If the US can't afford railguns 20 years from now because they never got around shrinking they're national debt doesn't mean they arn't battleready. And maybe they'll be sold, or put in action by other country's.

Remember, where in the Armaverse, an authentic depiction of real world scenrio's that could become reality in the future. We'll be able to fly the RAH-66 Commanche eventough in the real world the programme was canceled. But the programme was completed, and the final design is definetly combat ready.

Err debt has nothing to do with our revenues yearly, unless our credit rating sinks so low we can't borrow any more money (remember, our credit rating is still rating good, despite recently being lowered SLIGHTLY). Railguns are just physically not a viable weapon for tanks in the near future. We'll be hard pressed to pull off the energy breakthrough necessary to make that work.

[liquidpinky 11]

Railguns are just physically not a viable weapon for tanks in the near future. We'll be hard pressed to pull off the energy breakthrough necessary to make that work.

This is what I have been trying to drum into some of the more active imaginations on these forums, a railgun as a land mounted defensive fortification on the other hand though..........................

[slatts 1978]

where does it say its a railgun on that tank? cause i cant find it

[maddogx 13]

where does it say its a railgun on that tank? cause i cant find it

(Well, it doesn't say it's a railgun, but the firing effect has been interpreted to represent a railgun shot. It's certainly not a conventional cannon.)

[ProfTournesol 956]

(Well, it doesn't say it's a railgun, but the firing effect has been interpreted to represent a railgun shot. It's certainly not a conventional cannon.)

It's asking me to connect to youtube because of some content...

[liquidpinky 11]

(Well, it doesn't say it's a railgun, but the firing effect has been interpreted to represent a railgun shot. It's certainly not a conventional cannon.)

It is only a Merkeva tank in that trailer and not the speculated T90ish Railgun tank, the effect is probably only meant to mimic the shockwave of an ordinary round firing.

[maddogx 13]

It is only a Merkeva tank in that trailer and not the speculated T90ish Railgun tank, the effect is probably only meant to mimic the shockwave of an ordinary round firing.

Yup, that's quite possible. Perhaps there really is no rail gun tank at all.

[liquidpinky 11]

Yup, that's quite possible. Perhaps there really is no rail gun tank at all.

Not saying it deosn't exist in A3, just not in that trailer.

[slatts 1978]

sooooo...people have possibly been going mad over nothing?

[neokika 62]

sooooo...people have possibly been going mad over nothing?

Depends on how BI decides to implement this, it may actually be just a feature a mission maker can add, such as the SCUD in OA.

[slatts 1978]

Depends on how BI decides to implement this, it may actually be just a feature a mission maker can add, such as the SCUD in OA.

no what i mean is, there isnt any thing to confirm its a railgun on the (T-100?) tank. so all the bickering could be over nothing

[neokika 62]

no what i mean is, there isnt any thing to confirm its a railgun on the (T-100?) tank. so all the bickering could be over nothing

Yes, that is correct...=P

[Dingo8 1]

Nothing to confirm, but notice that the unusual tank in the screenshots appears to have an unusually small projectile size? Not your typical tank shell.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Dingo8
Misread previous posts

[s1zzl3 1]

It's authentic in terms of gear but its realism is the problem - regardless of "20 yrs from now" plausibility some things just won't happen. And others the developers just got wrong.

The world map has Poland under Russian influence in 2035, that is extremely unlikely, Poland is not friends with Russia and has never been on good terms with the Russians (even during the Soviet Union) and is one of the strongest supporters of NATO currently, to have Poland out of the alliance just seems very unlikely. Having Israeli Namer and Merkava vehicles under Iranian "OPFOR" control is not a realistic decision, sure I can understand an Iranian copy of the TAR-21 but Israel keeps the specs. of the Merkava and Namer secret from everyone, and they don't export them for that very reason - the odds that they would sell to Iran (which, regardless of future leadership, Israel will still regard Iran as Iran and an alliance again is unlikely). Also, the Peace accords are titled the "Jerusalem Peace Accords" or something like that donating that Jerusalem is a neutral city - thus tending to the fact that Israel is neutral (as they would be unless Iran invaded them.) My guess is that Iran consists of Iran, Syria, parts of northern Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Turkey and that Israel has been left alone (the devs. need to clarify this with more history). Also the RAH-66 was cancelled in 2004 and it's not going to get revived, a future stealth helicopter is plausible but it will not be the RAH-66. US soldiers wouldn't be deployed with European weapons (I am hoping that the FN-2000 is a placeholder) and US M-ATVs would not be sold to Iran either. The F-35 shown is actually the X-35, you can tell because the VTOL top hatch is different.

X-35B: is the JSF currently shown, the main lift fan's top hatch folds away to either side upon deployment

F-35B: The main lift fan hatch is one large piece that lifts upwards upon deployment

I would also like to point out how dated the equipment is for such a distance in the future (though I do like that it's not sci-fi at all). Given the rate of development and technology (especially MRAPs) does anyone else really thing we'll be using the same equipment in 20+ years as we are now? The stuff should be updated at least.

Despite this somewhat of a rant I do like what the devs are doing overall I just think there should be a little bit of refinement in terms of tech, timeline, and explanation.

Devs: provide us with a timeline or something explaining why everything is at it is (LOVE the explanation of the reactivation of the 7th ID btw) so that people have more of a background to go off of stuff.

Oh, and for the CPL Ben Kerry, Airborne School isn't at Fort Lewis, the only place in the US to have airborne school is Fort Benning, GA, and unless Kerry is a Ranger or SF there isn't any sort of "airborne infantry training" at Fort Lewis.

P.S. 173th Airborne BCT is stationed in Vicenza, Italy - they'd prolly be in on the action too wouldn't you think?

End. of. Rant. (for now)

[b00ce 160]

Oh, and for the CPL Ben Kerry, Airborne School isn't at Fort Lewis, the only place in the US to have airborne school is Fort Benning, GA, and unless Kerry is a Ranger or SF there isn't any sort of "airborne infantry training" at Fort Lewis.

Cpl Ben Kerry is Special forces, he's in the same team as the main character. That said, I'm not aware of ANY airborne at JBLM, special forces or otherwise. McChord AFB DOES have a ton of C-17s, so it is entirely possible that in the future Ft. Lewis becomes home to an Airborne unit or two.

[slatts 1978]

ive already said why east europe is like that, i'll dig it out

US soldiers dont use european weapons eh?

MP7

AT-4

SCAR

Beretta M9

need i go on? the F2000 it is not, there are changes to it

as for current day equipment i understand that, but look at the MI 48 and the backlash at that by some, picture a whole game like that

Edited May 18, 2012 by Slatts

[andi31 10]

Want you to fool us? ^^

Believe me.. I know all about planes/helicoters and the "Mi-48" doesnt't exist (maybe on the paper or thoughts)

The picture that you have linked as "Real Life"(http://www.abload.de/img/0_63dda_974c0c00_xxxlfrie0.jpg) is just the Mi-28!

Mi-28:

The fictionary Mi-48 from ArmA3:

http://www.abload.de/img/258018_19664964371510dje3e.jpg (176 kB)

Your picture (http://www.abload.de/img/0_63dda_974c0c00_xxxlfrie0.jpg) shows a Mi-28! Just play "find the mistake" and you will notice it^^