There should be multiple jets in the release version

[TSAndrey 1]

Well, considering Arma 3 is a top seller and A2 sold so many copies last year, BI should have the money to add more content post-release. I know that A3 had many project issues, but now that the core is done, they should have the resources to invest and add content post-release.

[Tankbuster 1744]

Personally not a deal breaker to me. Every time i fly a jet in arma it bothers me. Flight model is poor. Weapon employment is poor. Low visibility(12km if you can manage it is less than a Aim-9X's effective range)

Also CAS and CAP aircraft have to be majorly gimped in order to make the game playable/fun for other units. I mean what would be the fun in driving your tank column for 35 minutes being extra cautious only for the whole column being destroyed by 2 a-10C's 7.5 miles a way in less than 10 seconds. With no warning.

Although I wish there were transport aircraft at least.

But oh well.

Don't fly them then, mate. Leave it to those who aren't bothered by that. I appreciate and respect your opinion, and agree about the visibility and how that affects the air to air role. It's the pure speed of these assets in the (compared to RL) shrunken game world that means they simply have to be nerfed or they'd unbalance the game to a point they'd ruin it.

But for players on the ground, there's nothing cooler than having a human piloted ground support loitering overhead, particularly when they're in heavy enemy contact. And if you ask the guys who have done this for real, they'll all tell you that just knowing them up there gives them a massive moral boost. (apart from RKSL Rock who has a less than complimentary opinion of Air National Guard pilots in A-10s) :)

Edited August 8, 2013 by Tankbuster

[kylania 568]

But for players on the ground, there's nothing cooler than having a human piloted ground support loitering overhead.

Absolutely! Unfortunately air power can often entirely ruin a mission if they just destroy everything in sight. However, if you're playing with guys that respect realism and only fire when and where the JTAC on the ground gives the "cleared hot" signal, it's a really special time. :)

[13islucky 10]

Well, considering Arma 3 is a top seller and A2 sold so many copies last year, BI should have the money to add more content post-release. I know that A3 had many project issues, but now that the core is done, they should have the resources to invest and add content post-release.

This, more or less. I remember how on the axed features thread Dwarden (I think) talked about how they were going to revisit some of the community's wishes post-release, so who knows? Maybe the first campaign episode or a patch will actually add a few things.

[lordprimate 159]

I would NOT be surprised if the expanded content came at a cost.. like pay to play..... you want tanks .. $30 DLC.. you want jets $30 DLC.... As we already have our first performance based, Play to play content.. AKA Headless Client..

[maffa 29]

You're offtopic and you shouldn't derail what is an important topic with this.[...]

You're still offtopic. Stop it. And identifying something that in your opinion is nonsense with your elitist attitude to flight GAMES doesn't give you carte blanche to make illogical and frankly stupid "why not" comparisons.

This is too important for a combined arms game to be belittled by a flight simmer. If you don't like it, you can push off back to your switch flicking, massive manuals, grind and rivet counting. And if you stay offtopic, I'm going to report you.

young man i browse the interwebs since 1995 and i have some grasp of the english language, so i positively dont think ive ever gone off topic here.

Thread title: "there should be multiple jet in the release version" - "no, there should be none at all, because this this and that"

Since im going to ignore your threats feel free to push the triangle of dread and report me, i trust someone more internet savvy than you will make a better judgement.

Don't fly them then, mate. Leave it to those who aren't bothered by that. I appreciate and respect your opinion, and agree about the visibility and how that affects the air to air role. It's the pure speed of these assets in the (compared to RL) shrunken game world that means they simply have to be nerfed or they'd unbalance the game to a point they'd ruin it.

But for players on the ground, there's nothing cooler than having a human piloted ground support loitering overhead, particularly when they're in heavy enemy contact. And if you ask the guys who have done this for real, they'll all tell you that just knowing them up there gives them a massive moral boost. (apart from RKSL Rock who has a less than complimentary opinion of Air National Guard pilots in A-10s)

I agree with you, nothing gives a morale boots like some air support, but either they (as in 2 or 4 of them, because it's they way AF does things) make a pass up high in the sky, drop their things and go back to their bases, or if you want them loitering around use helos. Do a little effort and use the things as they are supposed to, cmon...

Absolutely! Unfortunately air power can often entirely ruin a mission if they just destroy everything in sight. However, if you're playing with guys that respect realism and only fire when and where the JTAC on the ground gives the "cleared hot" signal, it's a really special time.

It all depends on who planned and balanced the mission... a tank can make minced meat of tens of foot soldiers in seconds.

[comp_uter15776 1]

I agree with you, nothing gives a morale boots like some air support, but either they (as in 2 or 4 of them, because it's they way AF does things) make a pass up high in the sky, drop their things and go back to their bases, or if you want them loitering around use helos. Do a little effort and use the things as they are supposed to, cmon...

Firstly, CAS is designed to get relatively close to the fight, especially if it's a ground attack craft (cough A-10 cough). Some jets are designed to provide what is similar to JDAM drops, so, level or near-level flight, dropping payload, then returning, like you said. The difference here is that the ground is so small and it's the systems utilised in-cockpit that can't be replicated that mean one has to make a dive like some dive-bomber in WW2. That's because there is no proper radar, no CCRP/CCIP, basically the whole thing is lacking a weapon system except a point and shoot, and maybe a guided reticle when you're close enough.

To whoever said the F-35 was more of an air superiority fighter, whilst partly true, the F-35 is multirole. So, it can do recon, ground attack, or air defence. In a sense related to ArmA, it wouldn't be peculiar to see an F-35 on the scene.

You say about how joining the army is bollocks because you don't want to be really shot. If that's the case, and you want a sim which you are pushing ArmA to be, you're in the wrong place. Go check VBS out and get that instead. That'll suit your needs more than this. Repeat, ArmA is not a sim.

FUBAR my ass too. People who want a true sim can go to VBS (see above), if you can't afford it, tough, you shouldn't be demanding to have a direct replica of VBS here in this ArmA game. That's not what ArmA has ever been about, despite what ArmA 2's packaging says.

Yet you still insult my knowledge on aircraft. Not once have I really stated anything against what you remarked, and I quote:

Lastly, i also know something about real life planes, and i tell you that you don't know what you are talking about. They cannot be compared, not as a simulation, not as a representation, not as a placeholder. Planes don't float nor strutter nor glide ascending the way all planes in A2 do. And i don't even want to go into avionics. But even if they were a PMDG or F16 BMS quality planes, it would be of no use nonetheless because you don't keep your planes on the front, period. This may make some casual less caring player happy, but "hardcore" players know, and get pissed. Once you lose your fame of being a "sim" you become a "FPS for fun" like all the others, only without the marketing the others have.

Haha, is this your FSX marketing expertise coming into play here or something?

I never mentioned anything about keeping planes behind your lines

I never mentioned anything about the aircraft flight models being realistic

I never actually remarked on how the planes in A2 work

Oh, and ArmA was never, ever a sim. The sooner you work that out, the faster we'll all get along.

I wholly agree that aircraft should be used on call rather than like some sort of scout, and in my opinion, they are. You should play some organized co-op sessions where people do as they should and get pretty damn realistic. Of course, not full sim realistic, but that'll never happen.

Yes, the flight models do suck. I know this, personally I've flown multiple times and performed aerobatics and the like, and they are about complete polar opposites. That said, they serve their purpose in this military sandbox/tactical shooter.

I don't care for ArmA 2. This is ArmA 3 we're on about now, so let's try stick to that eh...

That's about all I can be bothered to say on this. If you really want some in depth simulation of aircraft, you're looking in the wrong place!

Regards,

Harry

[maffa 29]

So this issue really reduces itself to casuals vs simmers, isnt it? I wont requote i would like to keep the discussion going without decading in petty bickering.

I dont know how many of each group are out there, and what would happen if one side would wave goodbye. My perception is partial, as yours.

The existance of VBS somehow gives you the chance to send people off from your pretty arcade game, as if someone playing (well, top of mind) FSX and wishing for a better simmed aircraft could be sent away to some flying school/military academy sim pod, because since something better exists on the world, hence all that stands below is not a simulator. But then when i go to ArmaIII site, i read "the latest installment [sic] of the tactical military simulation", and i dont really know who to believe to anymore, the ones that actually make the game, or Harry from the forum.

The possibility to edit your own missions and to play great permanent campaigns on ongoing servers allow a great variety of gameplay and game styles. You could also play minecraft with tanks, should you wish to do so. DayZ is another example of what you can be capable of doing with the flexibility of the editor. This doesnt defeat the final goal of the game, i.e. providing a simulating experience of a battleground.

But -as you admit- unless you tweak and twist them until they become sort of crappy helicopters that cant stop mid air, jets dont belong to this scenario , as well as space shuttles, strategic bombers and ICBMs. They arrive from outside and go back outside. Sure, since CAS means Close Air Support it implies that the goal of the mission is to get near the frontline, unlike deep and/or OCA strikes that usually are performed far from it. Yes, A10s too start from way back and way back they return to. They may fly lower and slower than a F16 or F35, but they will go back, far from the frontline, once they are done doing what they had to, because this is they way they are employed. This is airforce doctrine, and sincerely it's also common sense. The fact that F35Bs can hover doesnt mean that they can be employed like helicopters, they hover for taking off and land on carriers and unprepared landing sites, so in a way it would be peculiar to see an F35 on a battlesite because they should be flying 4000 and more feet above the ground so they may be there but you shouldnt be able to see them. Helos are just *perfect* for Arma's scope and purpose, they fit in just like tanks and APCs and humvees.

I will repeat myself and suggest, again, a turboprop aircraft like the Super Tucano, that happen to fly closer to what A2 F35 used to, has a good array of weaponry and all in all it woulndt fit too bad.

Lastly, i wish to be clear by saying that, if not in its proper usage, i dont want to put any in depth aircraft simulation in the game. I know it cannot be done. For this very reason, i would like jets to be removed as playable objects and treated like external support. With this, you will achieve a truer "combined force" simulator game thingie.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Maffa

[comp_uter15776 1]

Aside from the fact multiple developers have been quoted stating that ArmA isn't a simulator (ooh looky! devs! not some PR bs), there is really no need for your idea that somehow aircraft can't be part of the game.

ArmA isn't trying to replicate military doctrine to the letter and as such, aircraft play an important role. You may think that 19km^2 is pretty small for a/c and it is, but 270 should be more than enough to have at least some resemblance oh calling in air support.

You actually admit this flaw in your opinion in your own statement. Saying that the editor is able to modify all this, is so true, and as such, would be all important to you. If you really don't want aeroplanes - don't play a mission with them in! :O New concept I know. Let the people who want them in have them, you can make your own missions if you like, you can *EVEN* put them in as a support module for attack runs! Something else you said you may have wanted to see (non-playable entities).

It's a simple case of your own personal wishes vs everybody else's and if everyone else wants to see aeroplanes/jets in the game, then BIS should do that. I don't think they'll mind to much if they lose a sale or two from you because of it. Wanting all or nothing simulation wise is a bit of a void thing to say too since the presence of VBS would let you have your idea of utopia there...

Regards,

Harry

EDIT:

P.S.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?157066-Serious-injuries-(graphic)-gore-violence&p=2417394#post2417394

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159007-Discussion-on-quot-Axed-quot-Features/page6&p=2439115#post2439115

Edited August 8, 2013 by Comp_uter15776

[scarecrow398 43]

Infantry -> Wheeled vehicle -> APC -> Tank ->Helicopter -> Fixed wing

I think fixed wing generally had the smallest number of missions in all games..

As for the rest, who knows. Perhaps they wanted a fully clean slate for Arma 3 as opposed to Arma 2 which used a few rare OFP assets, many Arma 1 and some VBS 1.

What do you mean a game company doesn't want to use old lower quality assets from 11 years ago, that's crazy talk, haven't you ever seen call of duty?!?

Joking aside, it does look a little unbalanced unless each nation is using the same jet which would be a little strange.

Though i'm kinda expecting more content to be added with the campagin DLC's.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Scarecrow398

[FanBF2 13]

I was thinking, what about HALO ? We need at least one transport plane right ?

[chortles 263]

This list cites a "C130j", a "F35-f" and a "L159" (which I've believed to have been renamed "A 143 Buzzard").

[f27sharps 1]

You right! Off course it's really important for the gameplay and immersive

[comp_uter15776 1]

Wow Chortles, good find. I hope these do arrive as I'd be a lot happier then xD

[FanBF2 13]

This list cites a "C130j", a "F35-f" and a "L159" (which I've believed to have been renamed "A 143 Buzzard").

But they are not in the official list.

Some games have things in their files that is not ingame.

e.g. Battlefield 2 with SIMRARD, LCAC, M82A1

[maffa 29]

Let me correct you: let the people asking for something that doesnt belong to the scenario waste their time, because it seems they are not going to get any.

You are blind to the fact that you are as partial as me on this issue, as you imagine your back covered with imaginary friends that back you up. I say that because i feel like that, too. I take for granted that one that prefers Arma over CoD is because its a better simulation and is not in for frags or whatever they are called. But i dont know anyone that isnt in for a mature game and simulation, so who am i to speak for multitudes?

Let put it like this. My solution wont waste any dev resource to make something that shouldnt be there in the first place, while yours will. And since theres a long to-do list to go thru, i think at the end of the day your requests wont get you anywhere. As i said, i am here on A3 because i hope AiA will work. I bought the game in the hope for better graphics and game engine to apply them to today's weaponry and scenario like A2, but if the simulation experience will be unsatisfactory i and my clan will stick to A2OA and ACE and that will be it. So you are right, i can edit my missions in order to exclude the things i dont like. Unfortunately i cant include the things that doesnt exist like bipods, windage or a better wounding system, because there isn't any at the moment, and i will have to wait for our extraordinary modder community to include these much needed features. These are my personal priorities, that are unlikely to pass thru just like your jets, but i feel they belong to the scenario while jets dont.

And all in all I must oblige to you the fact even if A2 was a simulator, or could be converted to a simulator because it has a reality to adhere to, at least, this sci-fi scenario allow all kind of tweaks and tricks, so why not having a jet that... uh... i cant seem to imagine what you would with that on such a tiny island, sorry, but anything you'd like to, okay? I can surrender A3, in fact im much satisfied with A2+ACE so have your way, ask nicely and see what happens. Take what i wrote in my first post as a reason why there may be no jets in the game. Nothing will change if i convince you or you convince me, we are not the ones managing the roadmap and allotting resources, so if i made my point clear, and made yours (i think you did) we can end it here :)

Regards.

[wildone_106 10]

wwow really? That F****ing sucks.......

[Intact 10]

I just made an account (I usually only read threads) to express my utter disappointment in the lack of content and more specifically the lack of jets (I'm also a big fan of air support). I do really hope they will release much more content with the episodic campaign and not as a 30€ DLC/Expansion pack. Anyway, I would've preferred if they had waited a few more months before releasing the game.

[dwaight 17]

only one jet? so few weapons, no shotguns? keep cutting content BI , WP.

[*LK1* 10]

Yeah that's why ACR DLC assets are re-used.

There was F-35 in ArmA2, it had perfectly working TAB-Lock (which you call "weapon systems" for some reason) and Jay Crowe was flying it at one of previous E3s in ArmA3 already. Flight model also hasn't changed a single bit in ArmA3 for choppers, why would it be different for planes? The only thing that needed prettying-up was the cockpit perhaps.

You are just giving BIS a green light to do stuff like this again. A game will have less content than ArmA2 (excluding OA), and that's an OK thing, yes BIS you did a great job, please do it again and again.

*

couldnt say better. i really dont understand the little funboy army that whatever bis does they are happy with.

we have less weapons, less vehicles, less jets than before but its all good. for someone...

first of all im totally against this "lets stay more focus on infantry" politic, but that's just my opinion. second even if we accept it that's not a good excuse to not implement some jet. this game is not based on asymmetric warfare but on a conventional war. so jets could play a primary role in many missions. and last but not least important it should be the map maker to decide what vehicle should play a primary role on his mission.

edit:

also...what about CAS. we will not have an A-10 or something similar to deal with tanks. and is not acceptable: CAS has the primary role to support infantry on the ground, an "infantry focused" option not avaible anymore, at least from fixed wings.

There's too much arse kissing going on here.

as usual...nothing new under the sun..

Edited August 8, 2013 by *LK1*

[comp_uter15776 1]

*

couldnt say better. i really dont understand the little funboy army that whatever bis does they are happy with.

we have less weapons, less vehicles, less jets than before but its all good. for someone...

first of all im totally against this "lets stay more focus on infantry" politic, but that's just my opinion. second even if we accept it that's not a good excuse to not implement some jet. this game is not based on asymmetric warfare but on a conventional war. so jets could play a primary role in many missions. and last but not least important it should be the map maker to decide what vehicle should play a primary role on his mission.

edit:

also...what about CAS. we will not have an A-10 or something similar to deal with tanks. and is not acceptable: CAS has the primary role to support infantry on the ground, an "infantry focused" option not avaible anymore, at least not from a fixed wing.

I'm just laughing at the thought of an infantry only battle across 270km^2 landmass from opposite ends :P

[trent 14]

Guys you don't to beg for an Arma 2 port of the F35 (and leave yourself open to the counter-argument that A2 models are abominations not fit for A3), we've already seen the F35 model flying in A3 and no one was complaining about its quality then.

What do you mean a game company doesn't want to use old lower quality assets from 11 years ago, that's crazy talk, haven't you ever seen call of duty?!?

Well they just happened to use the L-159 in A3 which just happened to have already been made for A2 DLC which just happened to be a variant of the L-39 in A2OA. No other game has used the L-159, even flight-orientated games, and BIS just happens to have 3 releases with it in?

[KingScuba 1]

that's just the starting list... expect them to add alot more, that stuff is simply what has been confirmed ~~"

If you're so nuts about "flying simulation" go play Microsoft Flight or DCS.

[*LK1* 10]

that's just the starting list... expect them to add alot more, that stuff is simply what has been confirmed ~~"

i hope so. but certainly im sure if you guys start with that litany: "ooh!111! arma 3 is so cool1!1! everything is perfect1!11! ihihi i love bis, i'll marry a czech girl and ill call my soon Marek in your honor!111!111" they will not be so stimulated to add news vehicles and jets, noone would be.

If you're so nuts about "flying simulation" go play Microsoft Flight or DCS.

or steel beasts if you love tanks. so lets play just with 2 teams, a bunch of new rifles and nothing more. let's go!111!! CTF here i come!!!!1!!

nope.

[Enricksolt 12]

The main problem is not that there is only one plane, the problem is that there only one plane with the same flight-system of Arma 2. If they had given us a well simulated plane, with all his features working, that would have been awesome even if it was one plane alone. Once you get the "basic" flight model you can make any type of aircraft (talking about the mods) with almost the same quality level. But hey, this is BIS after all! ;)

Now i get it, 25€ was not the price for the Alpha, it was the real price of the final release.