BAF, PMC, ACR, and... that's it.

[maffa 29]

I was wondering about the route BIS had taken between A2 and A3.

I am pretty sure Arma II has been considered a simulation, by a large group of players (expecially those using ACE) as well as BIS itself, once. I bought Arma II specifically for this reason, and together with my clan we play with this aspect in mind.

I, however, also play other sims, including MS flight simulator with IVAO (which, for those who dont know what it is, makes FS multiplayer). FSX dates back to 2006, but even if the game has been discontinued by long by MS, even thought it is still sold, its vitality is still thriving because of the simming fans that still use it and more importantly other developing companies and enthusiasts that pump new playable content on an almost daily basis (for sale or for free): new maps, new liveries, new avionics and mostly important new and better planes, anything a fly sim enthusiast can ask for. And so even if the software is 7 year old, it is literally still growing and coping with new or better pieces that make the simulation closer to reality. Anyone had flew a PMDG Boeing 747 on FSX knows what i am talking about.

Now Arma seemed to take this same route. As a simmer i expected to have new/better uniforms, new/better units, new/better vehicles, new/better maps, new/better scripts to allow bigger and bigger battles, or smarter AI's, or... you catch my drift. Who wouldnt have loved to pay for its own army's preferred or most iconic unit? Or who wouldnt have shed money for a massive persistent korean scenario (yeah, both koreas, THAT BIG!).

And that was the way it seemed to go: BAF, PMC, ACR and... that's it. Or better: and... Arma III, which goes totally on another direction, away from reality and existing things and -in a word- simulation.

So, what has been the problem? What is the story? Copyright issues? Would someone complain if BIS would have modeled some unit with X camo and that nations patches on it? Do they have to pay to model humvees or strykers metter, or to introduce -i dont know- Italian MBT Ariete's? Or did they sell bad?

Im curious, because the way A3 is going is so far from my expectations that it makes me wonder.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Maffa

[ProfTournesol 956]

You may have missed the wonderful modding community creating free contents for everyone needs, and which will do it for Arma 3 too.

[maffa 29]

i have not. but you didnt answer the question. Why BIS is not developing simming products anymore and has resorted to this clancy-esque scenario, escaping from reality and pissing a good number of simmers? the community is great and if it werent for it we would have a mediocre platform to sim with, but when volunteers go modding you get lot of incompatibility and instability issues, no guarantees, no continuity, no professional care. But even more so, since there is a market (aka the community), why dont exploit it? Why focusing on zombies and dubious futuretech, when all you had to do to get cash were other uniforms, other vehicles and other maps?

Edited August 16, 2013 by Maffa

[max power 21]

I think if you want to complain about arma 3, you can find a thread already in progress in the arma 3 forum and join in. Same with DayZ.

As for mod incompatibility and instability issues, I think those are pretty rare unless you're using couple of full conversion mods together.

BI have moved on from arma 2 because the product is at the end of its life cycle. I believe they continue to release beta patches to support the product however.

I think you are not alone in saying you would pay for further a2 DLC but I think even ACR was a bit of a stretch and they're focussed on their next product now.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I'm expecting Bis to provide the sandbox experience, not the content, that's why i don't care about A3 settings. If you look at the most recent dlc, qualitywise the community content is often better. That said, some aspects of the sandbox side may be somehow disapointing in A3.

Edited August 16, 2013 by ProfTournesol

[maffa 29]

ok, then my english is bad. let me try to write it in a different way.

why did Bohemia stop developing sim content just after ACR and change its policy? Is there a known reason? Bad sales/hope for better sales with a more generic FPS shooter? Copyright issues? Someone's intuition? No known reason?

I have my opinion on A2, ACE, A3, but this is the preface to my question. Why did they stop developing sim content? Why are they going further and further away from "simulation" and going in this "sandbox experience" (that frankly i have yet to understand what it means)?

[kklownboy 43]

i have not. but you didnt answer the question. Why BIS is not developing simming products anymore and has resorted to this clancy-esque scenario, escaping from reality and pissing a good number of simmers? the community is great and if it werent for it we would have a mediocre platform to sim with, but when volunteers go modding you get lot of incompatibility and instability issues, no guarantees, no continuity, no professional care. But even more so, since there is a market (aka the community), why dont exploit it? Why focusing on zombies and dubious futuretech, when all you had to do to get cash were other uniforms, other vehicles and other maps?

They do make sim products. Your not paying attention to the company as a whole. Not sure what your calling "clancy-esque scenario"? The ARMA series is just a game, with a sim-ish world. And NO you cant make a full Korea conflict size map and armys... No engine can That is way to big. As a mater of fact no engine but the RV can make ground/air, water "sim-ish" on a Large (50kx50k) map. Nobody else can. The community is being "exploited" they hire right out of it. Zombies have a place in gaming, and even better in a "sim-ish" game... , as for future tech... I am waiting for the community maps that bring Afghanistan/Iranian border, and play with more current equipment.

Not sure what your issue is with "stability"? But my game is stable. Runs great. A2 and A3. But i use quality mods/scripts, and well made missions.

[maffa 29]

They do make sim products. Your not paying attention to the company as a whole. Not sure what your calling "clancy-esque scenario"? The ARMA series is just a game, with a sim-ish world. And NO you cant make a full Korea conflict size map and armys... No engine can That is way to big. As a mater of fact no engine but the RV can make ground/air, water "sim-ish" on a Large (50kx50k) map. Nobody else can. The community is being "exploited" they hire right out of it. Zombies have a place in gaming, and even better in a "sim-ish" game... , as for future tech... I am waiting for the community maps that bring Afghanistan/Iranian border, and play with more current equipment.

Not sure what your issue is with "stability"? But my game is stable. Runs great. A2 and A3. But i use quality mods/scripts, and well made missions.

Oh jeez, i dont know if you dont want to understand or what. I am not going to reply to all yout post because if i were to do so the chacnes to get the answer to my question will become even slimmer. So, to the only line on topic: ACR and BAF were expansions for ARMA on the line id expect expansions to a military sim, and last time i checked they didnt cost 3600 euros like VBS2. After ACR nothing on the like, but arma 3.

So, back with the question no one wants to answer, this time in caps to help focusing:

IS THERE ANY KNOWN REASON WHY BIS STOPPED DEVELOPING SIM-LIKE CONTENT FOR THE ARMA FRANCHISE?

[[frl]myke 14]

IS THERE ANY KNOWN REASON WHY BIS STOPPED DEVELOPING SIM-LIKE CONTENT FOR THE ARMA FRANCHISE?

Because they're making ArmA 3. Because they're making Take on Mars. Because they're making DayZ. If you don't want to accept ArmA 3 as legitimate successor of ArmA 2, your problem.

[purepassion 22]

Also, what's this "Sim-like" content? If you think that Arma 3 is using mostly "fictional" equipment, have a look at this thread.

[maffa 29]

thanks.

other opinions, maybe from someone that dont see arma 3 as an attempt to make a war sim?

---------- Post added at 17:22 ---------- Previous post was at 17:16 ----------

i already did. there is the comanche, which is grounded and dead, and other assumed or prototyped stuff. You cant make simulations with made up / non existant / not mass produced stuff. Either you make the effort to get close to reality or its sci-fi. BAf and ACR didnt make up things, they took pieces of reality in as-is, or the best you could do. But this is not in topic, so i dont want to go there.

[kilroy the nerd 14]

Arma 3 still isn't close to science fiction. Also, sometimes dead prototypes do get a second chance at life.

As for making simulations with made up stuff: how so? If it's realistic, has things that can be accurately predicted at any rate, I don't see why not. Not mass produced stuff? By that logic, WWII wasn't real life because it had experimental tech being fielded!

[maffa 29]

do we really need a duplicate of that controversial behemoth thread? i dont think so.

So, if anyone thinks he has an answer to the question "Why BIS stopped providing contemporary sim stuff to go elsewhere", id love to have an answer.

[[frl]myke 14]

Answers has been given yet you refuse to accept them. BI didn't stop. They make ArmA 3 actually. Even if some stuff in there isn't existing (yet) doesn't mean that the law of physics are suddenly inexistent.

You cant make simulations with made up / non existant / not mass produced stuff.

Actually you can and it's done worldwide on a daily basis. Before prototyping anything, most stuff get's simulated on computers first, based on guess what...aye: law of physics.

So, question has been answered, there is nothing more to add.