Arma 3 full analysis - The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

[chortles 263]

The 'GREEN Guerillas" were specified in the TRG series' Field Manual entry at one point to be the users thereof, so I fully expect that they've since been redubbed the FIA and that the TRG series will carry over as their assault rifle.

As far as the "specialized role"... the thing is, concept-wise the MX SW seems intentionally in the vein of weapons such as the Diemaco/Colt Canada LSW*, the RPK/RPK-74, the QBB-95/95-1 and more recently the IAR concept (while the H&K weapon won the competition for the M27 designation, the Ultimax 100 is analogous in its earlier versions' use of the 100-round drum magazine and the Mk 5 version's support for C-Mags) instead of a "machine gun", though I suppose that that's because the "machine gun" term to me implies "belt-fed", which applies to both the AAF's Mk 200 ("light machine gun") and the CSAT's Zafir ("medium machine gun")... so at least to me the "role" differentiation in the game comes down to the weapon, I'm not seeing how you have "a specialized role less"?

* Designated LSV M/04 in Danish use.

[mr_centipede 31]

I think IRL LMG or GPMG isn't defined by their calibre, but by their role(how it's setup). The FN Mag (GPMG), a 7.62 can also be classified as an LMG if it's fired on a bipod by a single crewman (light role). When the same gun is set up on a tripod, and crewed by a crew of 2 or 3 the gun is now classified as GPMG (sustained role). But that is just my understanding of the concept... and I think a 5.56x45 LMG cannot be used as a GPMG because it's don't have the necessary range. So I guess calibre does define the gun class.

Anyway that's just my understanding of the concept. I hope in full released there will be a static MG that can be dissemble/reassemble to fulfil the GPMG role. It will be even better if the on hand MG can be combine with on ground tripod to assemble a GPMG, instead of having a Tripod bag and a Gun bag to assemble one... but I think I've strayed into wishlist territory

[Alwarren 2767]

The 'GREEN Guerillas" were specified in the TRG series' Field Manual entry at one point to be the users thereof, so I fully expect that they've since been redubbed the FIA and that the TRG series will carry over as their assault rifle.

Don't think I read anything in the field manual yet, so I wouldn't know.

As far as the "specialized role"... the thing is, concept-wise the MX SW seems intentionally in the vein of weapons such as the Diemaco/Colt Canada LSW*, the RPK/RPK-74, the QBB-95/95-1 and more recently the IAR concept (while the H&K weapon won the competition for the M27 designation, the Ultimax 100 is analogous in its earlier versions' use of the 100-round drum magazine and the Mk 5 version's support for C-Mags) instead of a "machine gun", though I suppose that that's because the "machine gun" term to me implies "belt-fed", which applies to both the AAF's Mk 200 ("light machine gun") and the CSAT's Zafir ("medium machine gun")... so at least to me the "role" differentiation in the game comes down to the weapon, I'm not seeing how you have "a specialized role less"?

Especially the IAR (M27) was meant to replace the SAW, but not a heavy machine gun.

The following is highly subjective, so take it for what it is (feelings not fact):

To me, the thing about Arma 3's weapons is its disconnection from the current world. I mean, in designing a future scenario, you can go about either by defining what you want and then "adjust history" that leads up to it, or by extrapolating from existing tech. What I mean with that is, if you look back at the last 40 years, even with dates like the end of the cold war and the beginning of the war on Terror, you still pretty much have the same hardware everywhere. M16 in the U.S., AKM and AK-74 on the "opfor" side. Arma 3 does away with ALL existing weapons. Even though only recently certain weapons like the XM2010 and aforementioned IAR have been adopted, in a mere 20 years, none of these is in use anymore; plus, the opfor side suddenly adopted the same caseless ammunition that the Nato is using. While it is possible to make up a credible explanation for that, to me it feels constructed and disconnected.

The same goes for the general scenario. OFP was easy to get into (Nato vs. Russions). Arma 2's conflict, to me, felt not so much like a post-soviet state but rather a lot like the Balkan conflict (maybe because that was the first major conflict I followed on TV), but through that, was also easy to "attach" to.

Now, a conflict (originally) between NATO and Iran on a Greek island? Again, very possible to explain, but to me feels disconnected and unreal. Somewhat like Retconning.

Unfortunately, this disconnected feeling extends to many areas of Arma 3 for me. Even some of the speech (I don't know if "Negat" is still in or not) feels weird. I feel generally disconnected from the guy I am playing, because (again, to me, myself) the movement feels robotic and unrealistic. Running and sprinting in particular since I don't think it looks like running (not enough jumping), and while the tactical pace is all fine, I wish it wasn't there, because forcing your gun to point forward all the time, frankly, looks weird to me, especially if crouched.

To get back to the Machine Gunner vs. Automatic Rifleman issue, even the names of the roles already cause this dissonance (for example, why not stick with terms like Medic, Sapper/saboteur and Combat Engineer? Why "Combat Life Saver", "Explosives Expert" and "Repair Expert"?)

All of these factors taken together already makes me not feel good with the game. Add to that some aspects like the (thankfully reworked) carrying capacities (which still need nerfing), the rather "meh" first aid system, and the inertia-less movement, it may become understandable why certain aspects tend to annoy me so much

And I really didn't intend to write that much....

[Thanath 1]

I can understand why some people would think that the skip in the level of technology or armament series is too much considering that it's been only 20 years. No doubt in our reality M16/M4 and AK/AN-series rifles and such will still be widely used in the 2030s. But I don't think that it's too far fetched to think that the US military would adopt a multipurpose design for its main assault rifle. Also, I hear that the production of the Kalashnikov-series rifles has ceased.

As for the movement, hopping and swinging your gun from side to side when running might look natural (and even cool from an action movie point of view...) but wouldn't it be a little... amateurish? The Arma2 sprint animation looks simply comical to me.

As for the designations, this might be the result of the ongoing hyper-correctness in naming things. They do sound a little awkward, but then again, most military stuff does...

Edited August 19, 2013 by Thanath

[13islucky 10]

The 'GREEN Guerillas" were specified in the TRG series' Field Manual entry at one point to be the users thereof, so I fully expect that they've since been redubbed the FIA and that the TRG series will carry over as their assault rifle.

Just checked. It was there before, but it's gone now. I guess that's to keep things neutral and focus more on the weapon itself than the people using them.

[Masharra 10]

I can understand why some people would think that the skip in the level of technology or armament series is too much considering that it's been only 20 years. No doubt in our reality M16/M4 and AK/AN-series rifles and such will still be widely used in the 2030s. But I don't think that it's too far fetched to think that the US military would adopt a multipurpose design for its main assault rifle. Also, I hear that the production of the Kalashnikov-series rifles has ceased.

As for the movement, hopping and swinging your gun from side to side when running might look natural (and even cool from an action movie point of view...) but wouldn't it be a little... amateurish? The Arma2 sprint animation looks simply comical to me.

One thing that arma 2 does better than arma 3 is showing more realistic weapon handling. the average soldier does not run around with his weapon anything like in arma 3. Doing clearing a room? Sure... running across a countryside.... hell no. Arma 3 soldiers are robots in that regard.

check the troops running across this small stream http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/afghanistan-conflict/troops-under-fire-by-afghan-river/2125355833001/

[nodunit 397]

Every effect is created for high quality settings at first and then there are created simplier versions based on that original effect. Simplier version of effect has decreased particle count and some parts of effect could be missing entirely. For example explosion of tank has around 1700 particles (around 28 emitters) on high settings, around 1200 particles (around 23 emitters) on medium settings and around 900 particles (around 19 emitters) on low settings. There are some other changes as well. Distant particles are simplified by engine and parameters for this are changed. Max. particle count for scene is changed too.

Some effects have only one version for all settings, because its particle count is already low enough or because they are WIP.

Thank you for the explanation, for some reason particles are one of the things I pick up discrepancy of the least but after that I'll do a bit more visual research on em ingame :)

[Alwarren 2767]

As for the movement, hopping and swinging your gun from side to side when running might look natural (and even cool from an action movie point of view...) but wouldn't it be a little... amateurish? The Arma2 sprint animation looks simply comical to me.

Why? When you're sprinting, you're not trying to control your weapon. You're trying to get effing out of there, or cross an open terrain, get into cover, etc. Nobody tried shooting when they're sprinting, and you're not trying to look elegant either. You try to keep your balance, stay on your feet, and get to where you want quickly.

The Arma 2 movement looked much more natural in that respect.

[Thanath 1]

Maybe it wouldn't make much sense in long distances or extremely difficult terrain, but wouldn't the transition to a combat stance be much more fluent if one keeps the upper body more still and forward oriented, even when moving?

[nodunit 397]

Why? When you're sprinting, you're not trying to control your weapon. You're trying to get effing out of there, or cross an open terrain, get into cover, etc. Nobody tried shooting when they're sprinting, and you're not trying to look elegant either. You try to keep your balance, stay on your feet, and get to where you want quickly.

The Arma 2 movement looked much more natural in that respect.

Not to mention running with your finger on the trigger of a loaded weapon is just an accident waiting to happen.

Maybe it wouldn't make much sense in long distances or extremely difficult terrain, but wouldn't the transition to a combat stance be much more fluent if one keeps the upper body more still and forward oriented, even when moving?

I thought they already did that for short burst sprinting ingame.

Edited August 19, 2013 by NodUnit

[Alwarren 2767]

Maybe it wouldn't make much sense in long distances or extremely difficult terrain, but wouldn't the transition to a combat stance be much more fluent if one keeps the upper body more still and forward oriented, even when moving?

Again, why? The point of sprinting is crossing distances. You don't run somewhere to stand in the open. You run somewhere, take cover, then sort your limbs for combat. You aren't combat ready when you are sprinting. You try to get from one cover to the next.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:17 ----------

Not to mention running with your finger on the trigger of a loaded weapon is just an accident waiting to happen..

That too :) I remember in Arma 1 you could run and shoot at the same time. Where the bullets went was... well. guesswork. The only thing you could say for sure was they didn't go where you wanted them to go.

[Thanath 1]

What I meant was that I think that the current sprinting animation makes more sense than the Arma2 one where infantry seem to hold their weapons almost horizontally in front of them while galloping, swinging them from side to side.

[sbua16 19]

Having been running with an SA80 A2, in hand, across many-a-terrain in Afghanistan, under various circumstance. I can say, without a doubt that.. people run differently. From I can remember, I made as little movement as possible, kept my Rifle close to my side with one hand whilst 'pumping' the other hand.. but people get about quickly however they prefer. Arguing the realism of how people run with a weapon is silly, really.

I do, however, prefer the animation in ArmA 3.. and that has no grounding on how it bears to the realism of running with a rifle, I just prefer the cleaner less kinetic approach to it.

[Smurf 12]

While we are at animations: The "bad-ass walking" won't change? I mean, it looks cool but all units walking like that is idiotic. As an issue that people brought up since the very first time it was shown on a Stratis teaser, I would guess things would have changed by now.

[Alwarren 2767]

What I meant was that I think that the current sprinting animation makes more sense than the Arma2 one where infantry seem to hold their weapons almost horizontally in front of them while galloping, swinging them from side to side.

The current animations, as far as I see it, have one specific reason for their existence: They are shorter than the ones before. In the line of "fluid" and "smooth" not the animation system itself was fixed but the animations where shortened.

I do, however, prefer the animation in ArmA 3.. and that has no grounding on how it bears to the realism of running with a rifle, I just prefer the cleaner less kinetic approach to it.

I just think that all the new animations look unnatural and robotic, especially when using tactical pace, because they try artificially to keep the gun up and pointing forward. I do not think that is the point of sprinting (not running as in jogging). The whole of the movement without inertia just feels so wrong. Just look at the video Mashara posted earlier, you can see the guy struggling with their backpacks. Yes, movement is smooth and fluid and stuff, but that is the same for Unreal Tournament or Quake. In Arma it just feels wrong, and I cannot help but feel alienated by the game.

[Masharra 10]

I think it ties into the gamier aspects of arma 3. http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/afghanistan-conflict/machine-gunner-firefight-in-the-stan/1557119772001/ Watch how he carries his mg.

Yet in arma 3 we can have the Zafir shouldered all the time even whilst climbing over objects.

As it stands if anything in my mind arma 3 plays more like Swat than anything else.

[Moroe 10]

I was just in a game of Domination, and i just realized that the interface for the ATV (when your using/looking at the bike handle bars.) isn't as good as the hunter or the other vehicles.

[shataan 1]

The 1 thing atm that sticks out real bad is the movement animations. A.I. Soldiers look real floaty like they don`t have a realistic positive footfall on the terrain. I am sure many others have noticed this as well. It is like they float over the terrain rather than looking like they are walking solidly on the ground.etc. Hope BIS rectifies this.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Shataan
adding discription.

[Polygon 11]

The further I play, the more I dislike island cutscenes. 0 atmosphere, 100% futurization. Terrible design choice, as part of Arma brand are vast landscapes and their natural colors/realistic terrain design.

[NeuroFunker 11]

So, the more further view distance you set, the less core game uses? Ive been using 3,5km view distance, alle core were used about same 40%, now i experemtaly set view distance to 12k, the game started to lag obviosly, and cpu cores load has changed to like 60% 20% 20% 20%!

[Rhym3z 10]

- no bipod deployment

I can't believe this option isn't in the game,

what kind of schoolboy error is that?

[TSAndrey 1]

So, the more further view distance you set, the less core game uses? Ive been using 3,5km view distance, alle core were used about same 40%, now i experemtaly set view distance to 12k, the game started to lag obviosly, and cpu cores load has changed to like 60% 20% 20% 20%!

I believe there is a 185 long thread about this: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?147533-Low-CPU-utilization-amp-Low-FPS :rolleyes:

[metalcraze 290]

Today's update has bursted "quality over quantity" bubble for good.

"RO2 has 2 vehicles? Well if those dudes just put the turret from one onto another they would've had 4 already!" - a mathematics master class by Bohemia Interactive "ArmA3 has 40 vehicles"

[Tonci87 163]

Today's update has bursted "quality over quantity" bubble for good.

"RO2 has 2 vehicles? Well if those dudes just put the turret from one onto another they would've had 4 already!" - a mathematics master class by Bohemia Interactive "ArmA3 has 40 vehicles"

I feel the same. What have the 3D Artists beein doing the last years?

[fujix 11]

I feel the same. What have the 3D Artists beein doing the last years?

Busy with fish and sea turtles maybe?

Imagine how much more content and features we could have if it wasnt for all the resources being spent on the whole underwater thingie.

Ofc its BIS game and they do whatever they want with it.

But let me put it this way. Underwater was cool for like 10 minutes. It doesnt really add that much. The community has screamed for bipods/weapons resting, advanced medic system, shooting out from vehicles etc for ages, this wasnt really a top of the list feature for the community.