Will ARMA3 feature realistic tank armor?

[b00ce 160]

So is it confirmed now?

Booster was trolling and there will be no/little improvement on this front?

Well it sucks but guess we can't get everything. Ace will do there thing and I guess that will have to do. O well.

Or maybe Booster was trolling, but BIS is really improving what he said they would. :p

[danny96 80]

Or maybe Booster was trolling, but BIS is really improving what he said they would. :p

Yes he was trolling - he promised deformation of vehicles - car rolled and no deformation.

[mr.g-c 6]

Or Booster is a BIS Dev... *cough*

Explains the non-reaction so far. The way he spread the informations and if they are not true, he should have been instant banned.

[danny96 80]

[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

Got perfect avatar for your profile, Booster

@mr.g-c

Yes he lied, he put here youtube link 'I lied'

[mr.g-c 6]

The we should report his posts and speak with the lead-mod to let him getting banned... The way he lied and made us "hot" was under every level i could imagine.

[-Coulum- 35]

Fuck!!! I hate this uncertainty. Im gonna assume there is going to be no improvements here. That way at least I can't be disappointed.

[cm. 10]

If ArmA 3 ships with a damage system like the current game (ie, less realistic than BF3), it will be a pretty good troll in its own right.

prepare to be trolled then

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

You don't troll me, after what I've been through.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?118336-ArmA-2-site-hacked&highlight=arma+site+hacked

Is all I'm going to say. Booster, I'm going all in, you guys can fold if you like.

P.S. Suggestions on Page 14 still stand, forevermore.

[antoineflemming 14]

Yes he was trolling - he promised deformation of vehicles - car rolled and no deformation.

IF Booster was telling the truth, there may be a reason why we don't see that. The vehicle deformation may not be present because BIS recently upgraded from PhysX 2 to PhysX 3. They said they had to redo a lot of work they'd done with PhysX 2, so it may not be ready yet. That said, I think he lied. He says he lied. Devs say he trolled.

On another note, I DOUBT an armored vehicle would deform that much from a roll anyway... It's an armored vehicle, not a car.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

IF Booster was telling the truth, there may be a reason why we don't see that. The vehicle deformation may not be present because BIS recently upgraded from PhysX 2 to PhysX 3. They said they had to redo a lot of work they'd done with PhysX 2, so it may not be ready yet.

Gosh, stop making so much sense.

Remember, kids: there are no such things as submarines in ArmA - http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/695/epluribusunum.jpg/

And American forces have never entered Baghdad.

[Beagle 684]

The current system of partial damage and armour penetration in Iron Front is pretty good, so I don't see why that would not be possible for A3

[mr.g-c 6]

The current system of partial damage and armour penetration in Iron Front is pretty good, so I don't see why that would not be possible for A3

Yeahh and while you say it... in the Gamestar E3 Video you can see they shot-away the tail-rotor of that little-bird.

So thats some sort of partial damage system already... hmmm....

[maturin 12]

The current system of partial damage and armour penetration in Iron Front is pretty good, so I don't see why that would not be possible for A3

Possible in the engine, for sure. But the Iron Front system required vehicles built for it from scratch.

And in addition, WWII didn't have so much variety and complex technology in anti-armor and countermeasures. None of it remains classified, and there's more margin for fudging and balance.

Hopefully the ACE 3 armor system will have less limitations enforced on it by the vehicle models.

[dm 9]

Yeahh and while you say it... in the Gamestar E3 Video you can see they shot-away the tail-rotor of that little-bird.

So thats some sort of partial damage system already... hmmm....

And like I said, this is nothing you cant do in A2 already, the damage model on the E3 MH-6 is exactly the same as the damage model on the Take On light helicopter (because its the same model)

[mr.g-c 6]

And like I said, this is nothing you cant do in A2 already, the damage model on the E3 MH-6 is exactly the same as the damage model on the Take On light helicopter (because its the same model)

And it is advanced over what we have currently in ArmA2.... :-) So at least "some" improvement in this sector... What advantages does TOHs damage model have else over ArmA2 choppers?

[[evo] dan 79]

A lot more parts can be damaged, if you turn to tight, you will damage the transmission will will cause your engine to break and then you will be forced to land. Also your rotor can be destroyed.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Dan;2167995']A lot more parts can be damaged' date=' if you turn to tight, you will damage the transmission will will cause your engine to break and then you will be forced to land. Also your rotor can be destroyed.[/quote']

That's pretty awesome as far as helo damage goes, though does the entire hull explode if you accidentally trip over a tiny, itsy-bitsy rock with your landing gear during take-off?

I understand that if you clip a tree in ToH with your main rotor blades, the blades are out, while the hull remains intact, which isn't the bloody case in ArmA's hitpoint system.

WTB Take on Tanks, so it could later be incorporated into a comprehensive package - ArmA IV. :rolleyes:

[maturin 12]

The presence of Arena-type APS in the first teaser suggests some sort of improvement. Of course, this doesn't mean that the actual hitpoints system is gone. Maybe we can still disable Abrams and T-95s from the frontal arc with Mk. 19s, but some rockets get knocked out of the air first.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

The presence of Arena-type APS in the first teaser suggests some sort of improvement.

DKKbisvGspQ

There needn't be some active ERA type armour to simulate this, just don't register certain types of AT ammo hits if they hit at certain angles to the hull, ricochet them, or make certain parts of the hull (front, or any part with ERA-type cladding) 'impenetrable' to certain types of AT.

Of course, this doesn't mean that the actual hitpoints system is gone. Maybe we can still disable Abrams and T-95s from the frontal arc with Mk. 19s, but some rockets get knocked out of the air first.

Hitpoint system will be there, it just needs to be subdivided into destroyable components (crew, ammo, engine, fuel, etc), so hitting a tip of the cannon, or a piece of the tracks with SABOT doesn't melt the God damn tank outright. ;)

[bohica 1]

Any chance we can get the Challenger MkII with accurate armour ie virtually indestructable?.

Can we have realistic stabilised gunsights like the Abrams and Challenger have in reality? So much easier to hit the targets

[antoineflemming 14]

Any chance we can get the Challenger MkII with accurate armour ie virtually indestructable?.

Can we have realistic stabilised gunsights like the Abrams and Challenger have in reality? So much easier to hit the targets

There's a ArmA 3: Community wishes & ideas|NO DISCUSSION thread for requests. This isn't that thread.

[mathiask1 1]

Would be so cool

[NoRailgunner 0]

Just curious how BIS should know about the exact/real data of all the stuff that is or will be fielded in 2035? Just some awesome speculations? Reading coffee grounds? Highly doubt that technologies and developments will be handed out just to everyone anytime soon.... ;)

[-=Grunt=- 10]

It's a mix of... Expected (Like the F35), speculations (Such as the Commanche, it's not made up but it was canceled but still in ArmA 3) and made-up but not impossible or has concept (Underwater AR) things.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

NoRailGunner,

High-tech composite materials at the very least. If everything else fails, including our own imagination, stick more Explosive Reactive Armour bricks on them tanks. :cc: