Jump to content
purepassion

Is Arma 3 authentic?

Recommended Posts

What exactly is futuristic about Arma 3? Not much at all IMO.
I agree, TI sights on every pistol and agricultural tractor are definitely do not create "futuristic" feeling (not to mention their simplifying affect on gameplay, luckily player can remove them from ammo boxes and disable on vehicles :)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What exactly is futuristic about Arma 3? Not much at all IMO.

I believe the reason why is because a large portion of the community didn't like the direction the game was going or how it was changing. In fact there seems to be a large number of people who still can't stand the futuristic setting and want a more modern version of Arma 2.

If I remember correctly, BIS had plans for things like Tanks with rail guns and I think there was even a pulse rifle or something being talked about.... As a result there was a furious poop storm of undoo dooed proportions in which the fallout can still be seen today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL;DR: Blame the community for Arma 3 not being "futuristic" because they can't accept anything that isn't 201X or "Fulda Gap" Cold War fantasies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TL;DR: Blame the community for Arma 3 not being "futuristic" because they can't accept anything that isn't 201X or "Fulda Gap" Cold War fantasies.

Tons of people bought Arma 2 because of words like Milsim. What do do expect for a community who thought Arma 3 would take realism to the next level with modern stuff? Instead we got stuck with the "it's the future" excuse to create a balanced and less realistic game.

Current standard and modern weapons and vehicles look a ton more realistic and futuristic then what we have in game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's not realistic about ARMA? other than the medic system... What makes ARMA3 less realistic than ARMA2? other than the medic system? All I see are just trivial matters. Mi-48 shouldn't have 3-barrel gatling cannon, or the Slammer don't have the 50cal mounted... So why does it matter?

The armor hitpoint system? ARMA3 system is an improvement over ARMA2 system, makes it more realistic. So really, how does ARMA3 less than of a milsim than ARMA2? Other than the medic system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's not realistic about ARMA? other than the medic system... What makes ARMA3 less realistic than ARMA2? other than the medic system? All I see are just trivial matters. Mi-48 shouldn't have 3-barrel gatling cannon, or the Slammer don't have the 50cal mounted... So why does it matter?

The armor hitpoint system? ARMA3 system is an improvement over ARMA2 system, makes it more realistic. So really, how does ARMA3 less than of a milsim than ARMA2? Other than the medic system

The 'realistic' word is just a buzzword being thrown around by people who have no idea what it actually means. For example a tanks loadout being different from reality isn't unrealistic it's incorrect at best, and a lot of the tank and vehicle loadouts from arma 2 had the same problem (looking at you, t-72).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 'realistic' word is just a buzzword being thrown around by people who have no idea what it actually means. For example a tanks loadout being different from reality isn't unrealistic it's incorrect at best, and a lot of the tank and vehicle loadouts from arma 2 had the same problem (looking at you, t-72).

Look in terms of faction assets. The AAF are equal and even better in some cases then NATO and AAF. The two super powers unrealistic ally mirror each other in terms of assets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look in terms of faction assets. The AAF are equal and even better in some cases then NATO and AAF. The two super powers unrealistic ally mirror each other in terms of assets.

Are you talking about in general or in the campaign?

See, this is where I think people get confused on what is considered realistic military power.

Most…if not all militaries ALWAYS look for the best weapon to do the job…If they can afford it or not is a different story…

The important issue is numbers.

It’s like comparing Israel to the United States. Israel is pretty darn well equipped (with a lot of gear we gave them or paid for.) But in terms of how much of that good equipment they have…the U.S. has more.

Just because the AAF bought weapons and vehicles that are just as powerful and capable as NATO, doesn’t mean that that the AAF is stronger and better. You still have to look at the numbers. (e.g. The size of the force.) If both sides have equally capable tanks but NATO has 50 and the AAF have 10. Then the AAF is at a severe disadvantage and is in no way more powerful.

Now in the single player campaign, they might stack the forces pretty evenly but again, that’s only looking at a small part of the big picture. On top of that, most Peace Keeping forces are relatively small so it’s not uncommon for them to be matched or outnumbered in terms of both vehicles and personnel.

And as far as militaries having good equipment…Again, militaries try to find the best equipment for the job and when you’re near the bottom of the totem pole all you have to do is look u. If you can buy equipment to beat the man on top, you don’t have to worry much about anyone else along the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the lack of realism in arma 3 doesn't really concern the level of textures details, which is good, but the poor level of immersion concerning all the rest :

poor sounds, poor fx effect, poor sight symbology, ballistic and firing procedure in vehicles and launchers are very basic, basic sniping system, poor planes contents, very basic tab key lock-on click system (from ofp), very few interraction and options, etc...

BIS is always using the same basic level of immersion, they should at least learnt about what ACE 2 mod brought to Arma 2, which is currently the best game/mod combo ever made in a mil-sim video game.

Another good exemple of the improvement of realism is the gap between the BIS AH64D version compared to the Franze/NODunit AH64D mod.

this is this kind of authentism that matter in a game such as Arma 3.

imagine if every vehicles, weapons an equipements had the same amount of details and authentism = perfect game.

Edited by cychou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look in terms of faction assets. The AAF are equal and even better in some cases then NATO and AAF. The two super powers unrealistic ally mirror each other in terms of assets.

Let's compare all the vehicles, shall we?

Quadbike - Yeah, the same as it's always been.

MRAPs - Some are faster, some are smaller, some have commanders, some don't. I don't see the point of more differences.

APCs (wheeled) - The AAF one has missiles and a 30 mm cannon, the NATO one has a 40 mm and a 6.5 coax and the CSAT one has 2 less wheels (not like it makes a huge difference, though it's easier to disable it with small arms) and a 40 mm cannon with less ammo and without the APFSDS-T rounds.

IFVs (tracked) - The NATO one has very thin armour, while the CSAT one has better armour and ATGMs. All other weapons are the same.

MBTs - They both have a 120 mm cannon, but the NATO one can carry 6 people in the back, while the CSAT one is smaller and more agile (or is it?).

Attack helicopters - The CSAT one is a flying tank, it has 8 ATGMs, 38 rockets and a 30 mm autocannon. In addition to that, it can carry 8 people in the back. The NATO one is very fragile, has only a 20 mm (pretty much useless the way it is now), 24 DAGRs (which are, AFAIK, supposed to be as powerful as the DARs on the AH-9s, but they can still take out APCs in one hit) and 4 ASRAAMs. It is faster and more agile, though.

Light transport/attack helis - Only NATO has them.

Medium transport helis - The PO-30 and the UH-80 belong in this category. The UH-80 is bigger and has just two miniguns, while the PO-30 has either no armament or 12 DAGRs and a 6.5 minigun.

Heavy transport helicopters - Only AAF has them (at the moment?).

Jets - Only AAF has them, at the moment.

Armed boats - The NATO and AAF have a 40 mm GMG and a 6.5 minigun, while the CSAT one has a 40 mm and a .50 cal HMG.

Unarmed boats - The same for every faction, they can't be different.

AA and arty vehicles - Okay, they're completely the same, just mounted on a different chassis. NATO does have an MLRS, though.

Now, the weapons:

Main service rifles - NATO and CSAT are pretty much the same, though since CSAT rifle uses a bullpup design, it has a higher muzzle velocity. AAF and FIA use a 5.56 NATO rifles, which are weaker than the NATO and CSAT ones.

DMRs - NATO uses a variant of the main service rifle, which has a uses 6.5, while CSAT uses a 7.62 rifle. AAF also uses a 7.62, but with bigger magazines, than the CSAT one.

Carbines - Both use variants of the main rifle.

LMGs - NATO uses a variant of the main rifle, while CSAT uses a 7.62 rifle, with bigger magazines, but a slightly slower rate of fire than the NATO one. AAF uses a 6.5 caliber LMG with bigger mags than the NATO one and around the same RoF.

Sniper rifles - NATO uses a .408 rifle with 7 round mags, while CSAT and AAF use a .50 cal Russian rifle with 5 round mags. All of them are, obviously, bolt-action.

Launchers - NATO uses a guided launcher that can lock-on onto ground vehicles, while CSAT and AAF use unguided RPGs.

Pistols - NATO and CSAT pistols are completely the same, but how different were they in Arma 2? AAF uses a 1911 variant.

Heavy pistols - NATO uses an 11 round .45 ACP semi-auto pistol, while CSAT has a .45 ACP 6 round revolver.

Heavy AA and AT launcher - OK, you got me.

I posted this on the feedback tracker in your ticket as well.

They don't "mirror" each other, but some of the weapons or vehicles are balanced (balanced≠same).

Now, if you would take the time to reply to this and stop spamming every thread with your tickets, that would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ADUILO The last part about balancing is true. Nice spoiler by the way, exactly what i was expecting. Besides those, in my views, while balancing out... gameplay... is key, i think that BIS should still keep into good consideration, that realistic gameplay, should still be over balancing gameplay. For example, it would obviously be pretty silly if one were to say, make a 500 Pound Bomb, weaker just because it could cause too much damage, and can be overwhelming... It makes sense to have everything in proportion. Though some factions may have some of the same vehicles (Scorcher, Tigris AA), it really comes down on the tactics used in combat to which team is victorious. Further more, Arma 3 is by no means in it's complete FULL game. It still has a long way to go. So expect factions to get more assets over time, as they become necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have personally no problem that the scorcher and AA are the same, first of all. How often do you actually get close to one, no less being in it(dont count just playing with the editor). There are maybe one or two missions where you get to drive on of these(a few more where you blow them up ).

While I do want unique vehicles even for these its not that very important as they are basically just bigger props and you hardly see them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's compare all the vehicles, shall we?

Quadbike - Yeah, the same as it's always been.

MRAPs - Some are faster, some are smaller, some have commanders, some don't. I don't see the point of more differences.

APCs (wheeled) - The AAF one has missiles and a 30 mm cannon, the NATO one has a 40 mm and a 6.5 coax and the CSAT one has 2 less wheels (not like it makes a huge difference, though it's easier to disable it with small arms) and a 40 mm cannon with less ammo and without the APFSDS-T rounds.

IFVs (tracked) - The NATO one has very thin armour, while the CSAT one has better armour and ATGMs. All other weapons are the same.

MBTs - They both have a 120 mm cannon, but the NATO one can carry 6 people in the back, while the CSAT one is smaller and more agile (or is it?).

Attack helicopters - The CSAT one is a flying tank, it has 8 ATGMs, 38 rockets and a 30 mm autocannon. In addition to that, it can carry 8 people in the back. The NATO one is very fragile, has only a 20 mm (pretty much useless the way it is now), 24 DAGRs (which are, AFAIK, supposed to be as powerful as the DARs on the AH-9s, but they can still take out APCs in one hit) and 4 ASRAAMs. It is faster and more agile, though.

Light transport/attack helis - Only NATO has them.

Medium transport helis - The PO-30 and the UH-80 belong in this category. The UH-80 is bigger and has just two miniguns, while the PO-30 has either no armament or 12 DAGRs and a 6.5 minigun.

Heavy transport helicopters - Only AAF has them (at the moment?).

Jets - Only AAF has them, at the moment.

Armed boats - The NATO and AAF have a 40 mm GMG and a 6.5 minigun, while the CSAT one has a 40 mm and a .50 cal HMG.

Unarmed boats - The same for every faction, they can't be different.

AA and arty vehicles - Okay, they're completely the same, just mounted on a different chassis. NATO does have an MLRS, though.

Now, the weapons:

Main service rifles - NATO and CSAT are pretty much the same, though since CSAT rifle uses a bullpup design, it has a higher muzzle velocity. AAF and FIA use a 5.56 NATO rifles, which are weaker than the NATO and CSAT ones.

DMRs - NATO uses a variant of the main service rifle, which has a uses 6.5, while CSAT uses a 7.62 rifle. AAF also uses a 7.62, but with bigger magazines, than the CSAT one.

Carbines - Both use variants of the main rifle.

LMGs - NATO uses a variant of the main rifle, while CSAT uses a 7.62 rifle, with bigger magazines, but a slightly slower rate of fire than the NATO one. AAF uses a 6.5 caliber LMG with bigger mags than the NATO one and around the same RoF.

Sniper rifles - NATO uses a .408 rifle with 7 round mags, while CSAT and AAF use a .50 cal Russian rifle with 5 round mags. All of them are, obviously, bolt-action.

Launchers - NATO uses a guided launcher that can lock-on onto ground vehicles, while CSAT and AAF use unguided RPGs.

Pistols - NATO and CSAT pistols are completely the same, but how different were they in Arma 2? AAF uses a 1911 variant.

Heavy pistols - NATO uses an 11 round .45 ACP semi-auto pistol, while CSAT has a .45 ACP 6 round revolver.

Heavy AA and AT launcher - OK, you got me.

I posted this on the feedback tracker in your ticket as well.

They don't "mirror" each other, but some of the weapons or vehicles are balanced (balanced≠same).

Now, if you would take the time to reply to this and stop spamming every thread with your tickets, that would be nice.

You're making claims without even attempting to cite actual configs made me cringe (your reference to the Katiba having higher MV than the MX). In Arma muzzle velocities are predefined by ammo type; the Katiba and MX use the same type and thuse have the same MV. The differences between the two weapons include:

- Higher accuracy for the MX, lower for the Katiba

- Higher RoF for the Katiba, lower for the MX

- Lower recoil for the Katiba, higher for the MX

- Lower mass for the Katiba, higher for the MX

- Ability to mount 3GL for MX

Your descriptions of IFV's and APC's make no sense and lead me to believe that you haven't used them; since when does the Marid have a 40mm cannon? Also, the Zafir has a far great RoF than the MX-SW. The GM6 Lynx is semi automatic. The PO7 and Rook-40 have far different recoil patterns.

Please, please, have actual data to support your claims. While I may agree with you in general, I can't stand to see so many false references.

Edited by UltimateBawb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The GM6 Lynx is semi automatic.

This is true, but in the config, reloadTime = 0.75...

For comparison, in ArmA 2:

M107 reloadTime = 0.5;

AS50 reloadTime = 0.25;

So Lynx is 1.5 times as slow as an M107, and waaaaaaay slower than the AS50, 3 times as slow. And originally, before numerous complaints, the Lynx reloadTime was 1.25! Making it basically a bolt-action in actual use (the bolt-action BLUFOR M320 is reloadTime = 1.5).

So the Lynx, at least, does seem like a case of "balancing" to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is true, but in the config, reloadTime = 0.75...

For comparison, in ArmA 2:

M107 reloadTime = 0.5;

AS50 reloadTime = 0.25;

So Lynx is 1.5 times as slow as an M107, and waaaaaaay slower than the AS50, 3 times as slow. And originally, before numerous complaints, the Lynx reloadTime was 1.25! Making it basically a bolt-action in actual use (the bolt-action BLUFOR M320 is reloadTime = 1.5).

So the Lynx, at least, does seem like a case of "balancing" to me.

Then make a ticket to get it fixed and for it to be closer to the real life version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is true, but in the config, reloadTime = 0.75...

For comparison, in ArmA 2:

M107 reloadTime = 0.5;

AS50 reloadTime = 0.25;

So Lynx is 1.5 times as slow as an M107, and waaaaaaay slower than the AS50, 3 times as slow. And originally, before numerous complaints, the Lynx reloadTime was 1.25! Making it basically a bolt-action in actual use (the bolt-action BLUFOR M320 is reloadTime = 1.5).

So the Lynx, at least, does seem like a case of "balancing" to me.

Firing a 12.7mm rifle is not the same as clicking your mouse. The reload time is appropriate enough and is two times faster than the Cheytac; you can't reasonably say the GM6 might as well be bolt action (even if you could it would still be semi automatic by design).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Already did, has been closed. http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9344

I would say "halfway fixed".

How so? From what I see it's reload speed was chimed back to how it was before. What rifle is the Lynx based on? That would give us some clues on ow it should be.

Edited by ProGamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How so? From what I see it's reload speed was chimed back to how it was before. What rifle is the Lynx based on? That would give us some clues on ow it should be.

It's based on the Gepard gm6 lynx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b97_1296268208[/url]

Somehow, I think that 0.75s isn't that bad. It doesn't look that far off. It seems to take a while to cycle.

I don't think the actual time to cycle the action is much at all, imagine if it was fully automatic.

Skip to 38 seconds in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFXgxBGcaak

And 40 seconds in this video:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the actual time to cycle the action is much at all, imagine if it was fully automatic.

Skip to 38 seconds in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFXgxBGcaak

And 40 seconds in this video:

Aye, in the first video he manages to fire off 3 shots in slightly more that one second. The gun itself does cycle quite slow compared to other AMRs like the M82, though as the video shows it still fires faster than the one in ArmA.

Edit: After doing some maths it would seem that the gun fires a shot every 0.44 seconds, about 1.7 times faster than that of ArmA.

Edited by 13isLucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found another thing which seems like balancing to me:

The 7.62mm and 6.5mm vehicle guns use their own "special" ammunition, which has way more penetration than even .50 caliber ammo (example, caliber = 3.6 for 7.62mm minigun ammunition, compared to 1.6 for normal 7.62mm, and 2.6 for normal .50 caliber).

As well, the 6.5mm and 7.62mm ammo used in vehicles apparently has a large amount of splash damage (indirectHit = 6), and the "indirectHit" range is 1 meter!

Made a ticket on it: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16159

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Found another thing which seems like balancing to me:

The 7.62mm and 6.5mm vehicle guns use their own "special" ammunition, which has way more penetration than even .50 caliber ammo (example, caliber = 3.6 for 7.62mm minigun ammunition, compared to 1.6 for normal 7.62mm, and 2.6 for normal .50 caliber).

As well, the 6.5mm and 7.62mm ammo used in vehicles apparently has a large amount of splash damage (indirectHit = 6), and the "indirectHit" range is 1 meter!

Made a ticket on it: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16159

The splash damage is because BI doesn't want to use Arma 2's fix for fire rate, and thus we are stuck with low fire rate everything compensating with unrealistic splash damage.

---------- Post added at 04:49 ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 ----------

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15519

---------- Post added at 04:50 ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 ----------

If it was balancing, then hopefully accidental and will be changed.

---------- Post added at 04:51 ---------- Previous post was at 04:50 ----------

Aye, in the first video he manages to fire off 3 shots in slightly more that one second. The gun itself does cycle quite slow compared to other AMRs like the M82, though as the video shows it still fires faster than the one in ArmA.

Edit: After doing some maths it would seem that the gun fires a shot every 0.44 seconds, about 1.7 times faster than that of ArmA.

Add your information here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9344

Then we can get this fixed.

The lynx probably got hit with people who don't do their research and thought that that wasn't how it was in real life.

Edited by ProGamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The splash damage is because BI doesn't want to use Arma 2's fix for fire rate, and thus we are stuck with low fire rate everything compensating with unrealistic splash damage.

Interesting... explains splash damage. Still confused about increased penetration, though, seems like a way to allow easy vehicle kills where in real life, it would bounce off.

Maybe they could use some variant of "simulation = shotSpread" and "fireSpreadAngle", create a few bullets per frame with appropriate dispersion, problem solved.

It would work fine, I think, if they allowed the number of "pellets" created to be changed from default 9.

ArmA 3 doesn't have shotguns so I don't know if they have changed this option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×