Arma 3 is not going far enough with Technology

[panimala 25]

I don't think ArmA3 is going far enough with aircraft technology, from what they have shown us through screenshots and the latest videos all we get are standard already existent helicopters that haven't even gone into mass production or are cancelled. So far we've seen the Mi-28/Mi-24 mashup, RAH-66 Comanche and Ka-60. If the game is based in 2035, I would be expecting things like the Ka-90, Mil X-1, not helicopters from the 1990's. Not very creative in my opinion

I hear you, they could probably come up with some pretty cool stuff. You just need to look at current modern concept models of future helicopters and go from there.

Personally while I think they could have done more with the technology, I wish that they keep as much current day tech as possible so we don't need modders for everything if we want to make a mission taking place in a current day setting!

[paecmaker 23]

I don't think ArmA3 is going far enough with aircraft technology, from what they have shown us through screenshots and the latest videos all we get are standard already existent helicopters that haven't even gone into mass production or are cancelled. So far we've seen the Mi-28/Mi-24 mashup, RAH-66 Comanche and Ka-60. If the game is based in 2035, I would be expecting things like the Ka-90, Mil X-1, not helicopters from the 1990's. Not very creative in my opinion

Even if I like the helicopters they are using I must agree with you but hopefully they got more designs that are not yet revealed.

[cadmium77 16]

I have been mucking about on these things, and been looking into military R&D to see what kind of things are really being implemented. Historically, the two driving factors in military technology development have been lethality and protection. In small scale conflicts, the protection of soldiers is really not done for humane reasons, if you look at it an a really cold fashion, but to protect an investment. A soldier today carries around tens of thousands of dollars worth of gear, and has hundreds of thousands of dollars and years in training invested in him. The issue gear and training of a soldier in 1900 was a fraction of what it is today. I have found that some experts even have expressed the raise in equipment costs in the shape of an exponential function. One of the more humorous ones predicts that by 2050, if the US defence budget will remain unchanged, the Pentagon will be able to field two fully equipped soldiers + assorted supports.

However, this will only continue until we see a conflict that produces major losses: any replacement gear fielded will be reduced in quality and complexity as expenses and production time and effort are lowered to meet raising demand. Then it comes down to what new technologies will actually stay being used: to stay, they need to be simple and cheap enough to remain on the "have got to be used" list.

On a sidenote, the new swedish Stealth tank using the BAE IR camouflage system: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?207206-Today-s-Photos-Friday-January-13th-2012&p=5972608&viewfull=1#post5972608

It´s fair to say that, if we take the F-22 development as a baseline example, this technology is likely to be fielded in some shape or form by the time Arma 3s date rolls around. I am still trying to write up a meaningful (and properly formatted) post that supplies some Ideas of what may or may not be possible. I am trying to figure out what is worth being put in and what is superfluous. I hope whatever I come up with will be helpful and interesting at least to some.

Cheerio

Insta

wow

Pftna34TbJU

[becubed 24]

This popped up the other day.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/11/22/the-future-is-now-tracking-point-precision-guided-firearms/

[Anubis2468 1]

I don't know but am I the only person who likes Black Ops II and ARMA. I have read the post and have seen people complaining about Black Ops 2's use of UGV's and how them and the UAV's are unrealistic and yes some aspects may be but as seen in black ops they have the 'CLAW Walker' and people are calling that unreal for the time so thats why ARMA does not use it but if you search up you can see the military are developing working quadruped robot's that carry bags etc and then look at the Israli Guardium and you will see the 2 combined could possibly make a CLAW. But yes it would be expensive and hard to support the ammunition but designs can change so really im not having a rage at hates of black ops i'm just saying all the UGV's and UAV's in Black Ops are possible and ARMA could maybe of added more UGV's etc however hopefully a few modders would be able to make some good UGV's and UAV's :) Sorry if it sounds like im complaining as i'm not :(

[paecmaker 23]

I don't know but am I the only person who likes Black Ops II and ARMA. I have read the post and have seen people complaining about Black Ops 2's use of UGV's and how them and the UAV's are unrealistic and yes some aspects may be but as seen in black ops they have the 'CLAW Walker' and people are calling that unreal for the time so thats why ARMA does not use it but if you search up you can see the military are developing working quadruped robot's that carry bags etc and then look at the Israli Guardium and you will see the 2 combined could possibly make a CLAW. But yes it would be expensive and hard to support the ammunition but designs can change so really im not having a rage at hates of black ops i'm just saying all the UGV's and UAV's in Black Ops are possible and ARMA could maybe of added more UGV's etc however hopefully a few modders would be able to make some good UGV's and UAV's :) Sorry if it sounds like im complaining as i'm not :(

About the claw in black ops 2 this is my take on it.

The claw is slow and pretty clumsy, making it an excellent target on the battlefield. What differs that and the "packbots" is that this is built to be in combat(which the packbots arent) Its a slow and big hulking machine with serious fire power, however the question is what does the legs give for advantege instead of wheels or tracks. As I see it the advantages of the legs (easier to move in terrain) is surpassed by its disadvantages (slow, vulnerable and advanced) The are complicated and more expensive to manufacture than wheels or tracks. And judging from the size its still to big for real close quarters so its more of a long range support UGV making the lack of speed even worse.

[scrim 1]

Not quite sure what the quoted post was actually about, but no thank you to armed UGV "walkers". This ain't the game for them, and they will never have a place as military equipment for obvious reasons.

[Anubis2468 1]

Not quite sure what the quoted post was actually about, but no thank you to armed UGV "walkers". This ain't the game for them, and they will never have a place as military equipment for obvious reasons.

I was just saying as I saw people complaining about the Claw Walker and saying Black Ops is unrealistic and Armas doing it well but I was just pointing out how Black Ops isnt that unrealistic.

---------- Post added at 18:17 ---------- Previous post was at 18:14 ----------

About the claw in black ops 2 this is my take on it.

The claw is slow and pretty clumsy, making it an excellent target on the battlefield. What differs that and the "packbots" is that this is built to be in combat(which the packbots arent) Its a slow and big hulking machine with serious fire power, however the question is what does the legs give for advantege instead of wheels or tracks. As I see it the advantages of the legs (easier to move in terrain) is surpassed by its disadvantages (slow, vulnerable and advanced) The are complicated and more expensive to manufacture than wheels or tracks. And judging from the size its still to big for real close quarters so its more of a long range support UGV making the lack of speed even worse.

I see what you mean but in Black Ops they are used basicly for defensive capabilitys and I thought they wouldnt seem to odd being in ARMA and I know what you mean about being clumsy and slow but thats why I thought they could of been in ARMA but just as turets basicly that can patrol a small area. :)

[scrim 1]

Yeah, Black Ops is unrealistic. All CoD games are very unrealistic, and the latest Black Ops took the cake.

Here's why some sci-fi/Star Wars/Black Ops/whatever walker will never become a weapons platform, or even slightly intelligent: They'd be very tall, and clumsy with a large turning radius. For being able to carry weapons that are less than those of an AFV, it'd have to be many times more expensive and heavier than an AFV. It'd end up being extremelly costly, very clumsy, carry relatively weak weapons, have a very high profile, and it'd be easily taken out. That, and we haven't even mentioned why it'd be harder to control effectively as a UGV, or why it'd fall over the moment it'd step on a larger rock or something as the weapons platform in the top would make it very top heavy, and with legs it'd be unstable.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i think that in 30 years the wars still gonna be done by men, the weapons gonna be the ones that we're seeing being approved rightnow and evolutions of this ones in the form of attachments and how the different weapons/operators coolaborate with each other to magnificate the capabilities of booth; are the fat things the ones that gonna change significantly on the future, tanks.. choppers.. planes.. how the arti and the sats work and that kind of things. The military personel like to have easy and reliable things on the hands. Let's C ya

[Anubis2468 1]

Black Ops pulled them off quite well I thought as the CLAW's were slow and had a terrible turning circle and were mainly used as defensive objects because the armour they used so really I did not find it that bad and the weapons didnt even closly resemble those to an AFV or APC. And when ever one was in the game it would be instantly noticed and targeted by you and the AI so really I did not find it to unrealistic and I liked Black Ops's use of the armed Quadrator which are actually possible and actually been made but not by the military yet. And back to the CLAW as it is not seen as being intelligent it is a slow dumb mobile turret in the game that is used to take action of troops to allow them to get into cover and for support and to hide behind for cover. So really I don't find Black Ops to unrealistic in the UGV and UAV area. But thats just me and I think my post came out abit wrong as I was sort of just saying they could of added more UAV's and UGV's I didnt want to turn it into a game war... Heres proof of quadrators made aswell

[paecmaker 23]

Black Ops pulled them off quite well I thought as the CLAW's were slow and had a terrible turning circle and were mainly used as defensive objects because the armour they used so really I did not find it that bad and the weapons didnt even closly resemble those to an AFV or APC. And when ever one was in the game it would be instantly noticed and targeted by you and the AI so really I did not find it to unrealistic and I liked Black Ops's use of the armed Quadrator which are actually possible and actually been made but not by the military yet. And back to the CLAW as it is not seen as being intelligent it is a slow dumb mobile turret in the game that is used to take action of troops to allow them to get into cover and for support and to hide behind for cover. So really I don't find Black Ops to unrealistic in the UGV and UAV area. But thats just me and I think my post came out abit wrong as I was sort of just saying they could of added more UAV's and UGV's I didnt want to turn it into a game war... Heres proof of quadrators made aswell

The problem with the claw is still its lack of versatility, even in todays military many of the things are made to be more and more mobile and versatile. The claw is simply not mobile enough to be used efficiently on the battlefield, whether its defense or attack. The only real thing it does work for is as you say, a walking defense turret however that is the only thing it can do, so its not versatile enough because for it to work it should work both for defense and attack.

[scrim 1]

Anubis, it's CoD. There is nothing realistic about it. Just get over it already.

[vampire613 1]

Dont forget the Deathstar and nuclear powered jetpacks.

I really do not know why the new game is going to be set in the future, really bad move in my eyes. Stick with the present..

[maddogx 13]

really bad move in my eyes. Stick with the present..

Why?

.

[Phantom Six 25]

It's not the far into the future so it'll just be using prototype weapons that are already created now, not some crazy sci-fi Ghost cloak suit or giant clumsy walkers that will fall over a cliff or rock, or rover with lazors all over them.

A little into the future isn't too bad. War will still be done by men, probably there will just be a few extra drones and unmanned vehicle. I wouldn't mind seeing an unmanned air vehicle.

[Zionist_Wabbit 1]

Not to offend anyone here, but you're being far too optimistic - People in the 1930-50 Era were predicting Unmanned Ariel Vehicles, yet only in the last decade have they become a viable Military tool. As such, you cannot think something will be finished by then based on the current progression in Science. As much as it moves forward, it also moves backwards. The chances of us having developed such items and have them in mass-production & affordable for mass-Military use is simply nonsense. As is, many developed Countries are already cutting Military Budget, meaning many things like this (Assuming they were made & rolled out) would only be in small quantities, possibly only Advanced Special Operations groups having access, not what ArmA in general was designed to be. ArmA was to be a MilitarySim, encompassing the general Military Groups rather then the current Shoot-em-up FPS Games, where you're put into a low-numbering SpecOps team.

Now that I've said why they wouldn't be finished by then, shall we discuss the Economic flaws with actually attempting to so? The U.S. is teetering on the brink of Bankruptcy, along with most other Developed Nations, Mediterranean (Where A:III is to take place) being one of the worst-hit areas. The assumption that at the time of War any Nation will immediately come-to & spend Billions on designs created by optimist is simple nonsense.

That said, I'm quite looking forward to the game nonetheless, as I'm sure you all are. I like how its currently looking / modelled, focusing more on machine-aided Man-v-Man warfare rather then complete Machine-v-Machine, allowing the Player to become more immersed.

[jumpinghubert 49]

I like how its currently looking / modelled, focusing more on machine-aided Man-v-Man warfare rather then complete Machine-v-Machine, allowing the Player to become more immersed.

signed. good point.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Well in the alternate reality of Armaverse many things can happen. Even more use of advanced technologies for surveillance/reconnaissance! Just look at developments of autonomous systems, C4I (command, control, communications, computers) etc. War in 2035 will be not the same like in WW1 or WW2 or Cold War era.... No one will start a World War without having done his homework and have some surprising trump cards up in his sleeves. Just think of military bases and important objects/places that are additionally protected by an armed CCTV system incl. FLIR, audio- and movement sensors. Or maybe BIS are developing some radar/electronic-warfare features so certain buildings/objects will be more functional/important and not just eyecandy? ;)

[ProBiscuit 1]

Good point^^^

[Kamov 1]

Not to offend anyone here, but you're being far too optimistic - People in the 1930-50 Era were predicting Unmanned Ariel Vehicles, yet only in the last decade have they become a viable Military tool. As such, you cannot think something will be finished by then based on the current progression in Science. As much as it moves forward, it also moves backwards. The chances of us having developed such items and have them in mass-production & affordable for mass-Military use is simply nonsense. As is, many developed Countries are already cutting Military Budget, meaning many things like this (Assuming they were made & rolled out) would only be in small quantities, possibly only Advanced Special Operations groups having access, not what ArmA in general was designed to be. ArmA was to be a MilitarySim, encompassing the general Military Groups rather then the current Shoot-em-up FPS Games, where you're put into a low-numbering SpecOps team.

Now that I've said why they wouldn't be finished by then, shall we discuss the Economic flaws with actually attempting to so? The U.S. is teetering on the brink of Bankruptcy, along with most other Developed Nations, Mediterranean (Where A:III is to take place) being one of the worst-hit areas. The assumption that at the time of War any Nation will immediately come-to & spend Billions on designs created by optimist is simple nonsense.

That said, I'm quite looking forward to the game nonetheless, as I'm sure you all are. I like how its currently looking / modelled, focusing more on machine-aided Man-v-Man warfare rather then complete Machine-v-Machine, allowing the Player to become more immersed.

I don't see any non cancelled prototypes in ArmA3. The Mi-28/Hind mix is bullshit since it was only drawn up in concept but never built, and is not planned to be built either, since we're already moving onto the next generation of helicopters. The Comanche was replaced by UAV's.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Kamov

[max power 21]

Oh, so there was a Kajman concept. I thought BIS made it up. Very interesting. That makes it even better!

[Zionist_Wabbit 1]

So as to not bore you all with lengthy re-quotes, I'll bypass it entirely.

@NoRailGunner I do understand the alternative ArmAverse, but you cannot disagree many of the things inside of it are eerily similar to real-life Items ECT. Moreso, the concept behind many of the Vehicles, Weaponry & so on are indeed based on expectations, with slight roll-backs to account for many technological flaws with certain aspects.

You also mentioned the research behind a war - As I had previously pointed out, the Economy is being factored in quite a lot, so it seems. The entire Plot begins with mentioning the current Economic Crisis, which hasn't gotten better as time has passed. The US is also, according to the Plot & Backround, in a Cold War-esk position with China, and many other NATO European States are leaving the agreement in favour of Russian Oil. Now, the NATO Forces (Which, of course, the Player will be playing as in SinglePlayer / Most MultiPlayer Matches) are both scattered & worried of a War looming in the Mediterranean, and a possible attack from China.

-Remember, this is less then a decade before the time-frame inwhich ArmA: III takes place-

I very highly doubt the NATO Forces would be able to grow its Armed Forces exponentially in approximately half a decade, let alone develop far more Advanced machinery in that time & mass-produce it, even if they were to have astounding Scientific growth from now.

[Corvinus 35]

Oh, so there was a Kajman concept.

Never heard of anything like it. Perhaps, Kamov can clarify?

[max power 21]

Never heard of anything like it. Perhaps, Kamov can clarify?

Me either. Maybe he's talking about the Mil Mi-40?