Arma 3 Jet question

[LairenyX 10]

Hi,

I have a question. Does Arma 3 have the same jet control or very similar control and physics as the game Falcon 4.0, specifically Falcon BMS 4.32 Update 6? I really like to fly the jet to dogfight and support ground. I picked up BF3 but the jets in there are like hang gliders, and there are not to much maneuvering except flying in circle.

My plan is to practice in an all jet game like Falcon 4 and then go and use my skill there to fly the jet in Arma 3. Would this be possible? Does Falcon 4.0 and Arma 3 have the same control and physics?

Any insight is appreciated, thanks!

[kylania 567]

No, ArmA3 does not match the flight model nor controls of a dedicated flight sim. ArmA3 is an infantry focused military sandbox.

[progamer 14]

No, ArmA3 does not match the flight model nor controls of a dedicated flight sim. ArmA3 is an infantry focused military sandbox.

Combined arms game. You can support real players in real time with aircraft, spot enemies with a cas helicopter for a tank battalion with real players in the tanks.

[LairenyX 10]

About that, do you guys know any modern combine arm game with good amount of jet in them? especially with good graphics?

[comp_uter15776 1]

About that, do you guys know any modern combine arm game with good amount of jet in them? especially with good graphics?

Not really. BMS is a flight sim (I fly too) and as such basically features the F-16 and the F-16 only. There are hackish ways to get around that and you can use all the models in the game then, but you'll still want something like Aeyes cockpits unless you're fine with having an F-16 cockpit for an EF-2000 :)

ArmA is nowhere near as advanced. Jets are more a support role, and supplement the game, rather than being the main focus. Most of the cockpit isn't interactive, only a few panels (i.e. Altimeter) will actually display something.

My only recommendation other than ArmA would be DCS: Combined Arms.

[RushHour 11]

No, ArmA3 does not match the flight model nor controls of a dedicated flight sim. ArmA3 is an infantry focused military sandbox.

I disagree, i´d say it´s a war simulator that nearly covers all aspects of modern warfare.

Infantry, tanks, drones, jets, transportplanes (hopefully), small choppers, transport choppers, cars, transport cars, AA-missiles, etc etc etc, it´s clearly designed to cover all aspects of war, not just infantry.

[comp_uter15776 1]

I disagree, i´d say it´s a war simulator that nearly covers all aspects of modern warfare.

Infantry, tanks, drones, jets, transportplanes (hopefully), small choppers, transport choppers, cars, transport cars, AA-missiles, etc etc etc, it´s clearly designed to cover all aspects of war, not just infantry.

ArmA (and mainly ArmA 3 now) is widely mis-conceived as a milsim, but is actually a "tactical military shooter". I suggest VBS as a simulator.

[RushHour 11]

ArmA (and mainly ArmA 3 now) is widely mis-conceived as a milsim, but is actually a "tactical military shooter". I suggest VBS as a simulator.

I see it as a simulator because it clearly tries to simulate real warfare. Tactical military shooter i would have agreed if infantry was the only aspect of the game but it´s just a dot in space really.

[comp_uter15776 1]

I see it as a simulator because it clearly tries to simulate real warfare. Tactical military shooter i would have agreed if infantry was the only aspect of the game but it´s just a dot in space really.

It really doesn't try to simulate real warfare. It appeals to the community who would like it to yes, but the list is almost endless about things in war which aren't in ArmA - as one moderator aptly put it, "shitting in woods" isn't in the game ;)

[RushHour 11]

Well neither is the nuclear fusion of the sun simulated yet the game definitely simulates the sun, the moon and the stars accurately.

You can take a racing simulator too and list thousands of things not in the game but it´s still a simulator at the end of the day.

[kylania 567]

All branding of ArmA3 says "military sandbox". All recent interviews from the Devs reinforce that it's a "military sandbox"*.

As much as you and I want it to be a sim, it's not and it's intentionally not. BIS is trying very hard to pull away from the "ArmA is a sim" concept because they can't make it a quality sim to the levels we'd expect. So instead it's a sandbox. Not a sim. Not a shooter. A sandbox.

* says sandbox six times on that page :)

[Covert_Death 11]

ArmA (and mainly ArmA 3 now) is widely mis-conceived as a milsim, but is actually a "tactical military shooter". I suggest VBS as a simulator.

and just how do you suggest we go about getting VBS? i mean i understand your recommendation but its not really a recommendation that anyone can follow...

[RushHour 11]

All branding of ArmA3 says "military sandbox". All recent interviews from the Devs reinforce that it's a "military sandbox"*.

As much as you and I want it to be a sim, it's not and it's intentionally not. BIS is trying very hard to pull away from the "ArmA is a sim" concept because they can't make it a quality sim to the levels we'd expect. So instead it's a sandbox. Not a sim. Not a shooter. A sandbox.

* says sandbox six times on that page :)

Well i think it´s both.

Sandbox comes with the editor and do whatever you like but the end result of your sandbox experience is simulating various snippets of war you have imagined.

The whole singleplayer aspect is not sandbox, it´s simulating war scenarios.

Yea it says sandbox a lot, it also says, Authentic, diverse, open - Arma 3â„¢ sends you to war. Sending you to war...or in fact simulated snippets of war created by the minds at BI (or by members with their own imagination through the sandbox experience enabled by the editor.

For being a commercial product with limited budget i´d say they fullfill both of these things very well.

Edited August 20, 2013 by RushHour

[chortles 263]

The semantics aside... while Arma 3 does represent "Infantry, tanks, drones, jets, transportplanes (hopefully), small choppers, transport choppers, cars, transport cars, AA-missiles, etc etc etc", there isn't a consistent level/standard (i.e. detail and complexity) of simulation between those elements... hence what Comp_uter15776 said about Arma 3 versus "a flight sim"...

Think "broad scope with a shallow(er) level of detail versus a narrow scope with a deep(er) and high(er) level of detail", even when ProGamer's "You can support real players in real time with aircraft, spot enemies with a cas helicopter for a tank battalion with real players in the tanks" is valid.

[RushHour 11]

Someone should definitely update Wikipedia then.

VBS 2 - Military simulation and training. Computer simulation.

Arma 3 - Military simulation, tactical shooter

VBS2 offers realistic battlefield simulations and the ability to operate land, sea, and air vehicles. Instructors may create new scenarios and then engage the simulation from multiple viewpoints. The squad-management system enables participants to issue orders to squad members.

VBS2 was designed for federal, state, and local government agencies and can be specifically tailored to meet the individual needs of military, law enforcement, homeland defense, loadmaster, and first responder training environments.

VBS2 may be used to teach doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures during squad and platoon offensive, defensive, and patrolling operations. VBS2 delivers a synthetic environment for the practical exercise of the leadership and organizational behavior skills required to successfully execute unit missions.

VBS2 is suitable for training small teams in urban tactics, entire combat teams in combined arms operations or even non-military usage such as emergency response procedures in lethal and non-lethal environments or terrain visualization.

VBS2 is based on the Arma 2 Engine.

From what i´ve seen Arma 3 does all of that. And then some. It might not be 100% tailored for the Australian army or whatever but overall, pretty damn close.

The simulation engine driving VBS2 is Real Virtuality 2, developed by Bohemia Interactive. VBS2 allows a user to develop large terrain areas, over 10,000 square kilometres (3,900 sq mi) in size (at any terrain resolution) and populate the terrain area with millions of objects in accordance with VMAP shape data, and then texture-map the entire representation with high-resolution satellite imagery or aerial photography.

Once the terrain representation is exported into VBS2, the simulation engine will provide a simulation of the real world, incorporating moving trees and grass, ground clutter, ambient animal life, shadows, dynamic lighting, weather and time of day.

A new streaming capability provides an efficient means of loading complex terrain areas as object and texture data is processed only when required. View distances are now typically five times greater than in VBS1 (depending on processor speed) – level of detail culling has been improved to allow attack helicopters and armoured vehicles to engage at realistic ranges, and forward observers to call artillery fire from greater distances.

It seems to me Arma 3 is a commercial product of VBS, with only minor features separating them. But overall very much the same sort of game.

A virtual battlefield is the digital simulation of a war, generally accomplished by the combination of differing simulators into a digital environment. Each soldier, or vehicle in the environment is controlled by a human being. A functioning virtual battlefield has long been sought after by DARPA and various militaries as an augmentation to contemporary military exercises. VBS1 (Virtual Battlespace 1) and VBS2 by Bohemia Interactive Studio may qualify as virtual battlefields.

In relation to video games, the term "virtual battlefield" has been used to describe games that combine two or more categories of massive multiplayer vehicle simulation on more or less equal terms. This can also mean a combination of the Massive Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter genre and vehicle simulation. For instance, a massive multiplayer game that puts its emphasis on aircraft is a massive multiplayer combat flight simulator. A massive multiplayer game that put its emphasis on tank simulation would be called a massive multiplayer armored combat simulator. However, a massive multiplayer game that put more or less equal emphasis on both would be a virtual battlefield, for lack of a better term. Virtual battlefields differ from MMOFPSs because of accurate vehicle simulation. A virtual battlefield can also be distinguished from traditional first-person shooters that include vehicles (Battlefield 2) by the extent of the terrain, the number of possible simultaneous players (both of which need to be large enough to reflect the accurate size of battles and engagement distances), and the accuracy of the vehicle simulation. Currently, World War II Online is the only video game that claims to be a virtual battlefield. Armed Assault also appears to fit the definition with its 'Capture the Island' game mode.

then when you take into account it runs on the same engine (in this case A2 engine) the differences start to become a bit of a grasping of straws imo.

With VBS 3 and looking at some points they have on their website it seems it´s based on the Arma 3 engine.

It´s the same game just alot more hardcore. Where Arma 3 in of itself is very hardcore if you look at other war games.

I think the reason they don´t want to call it a simulator is because they have a product for the military they advertise as a simulator, but at the end of the day is built using the very same engine.

---------- Post added at 17:37 ---------- Previous post was at 17:32 ----------

It´s the same with racing simulators.

Kunos Simulazioni does the same thing. Builds simulators for racing teams that are much more focused, and then they have their commercial product which is not as hardcore but well within the realms of being called a simulation.

Edit2: VBS 3

A redesigned, cleaner, and simpler user interface

Support for larger multi-map terrains (over 2000km by 2000km), including high-detail insets

Improved network performance, allowing for increased number of clients and AI entities

Improved procedural and multi-map terrain rendering

Support for high-fidelity graphics

Improved support for the maritime environment, including large and high-detail ships

Improved physics via PhysX by Nvidia middleware

Reworked animation system for increased realism

Improved after-action review (AAR) capability, including AAR editing

Robust and proven HLA and DIS interoperability

Integrated digital chalkboard for military overlays in both 2D and 3D - free for VBS3 first adopters only (see below)!

Who would have guessed that. Could it be that it´s nearly identical to Arma 3 except some further features suited for the various militaries around the world to enhance the ability for using it as a training tool.

Edited August 20, 2013 by RushHour

[comp_uter15776 1]

blah

You've seen countless others also say it - ArmA 3 is NOT a milsim! You can dream all you like!

Oh, and to whoever asked about it - well, you're paying for a fully featured simulator so although the price is high, you are getting a fair bit. And yes, it's obtainable without being a military general.

Back @ RushHour - arma doesn't offer realistic battlefield simulations. It wasn't designed for the various agencies. It wasn't used to teach operations. It doesn't deliver a practical SE for training purposes (I paraphrased that one). It's not suitable for training (again). It's not for non-military training (i.e. EMS) either.

No, it really isn't close.

VBS2 has much larger areas - Did you not hear the size of Altis? It's the largest map yet at 900km^2 INCLUDING water/aerospace... VBS2's maximum creation is 10000km^2.

Also they run on slightly different versions of the engine - A3 is RV4.0...

It goes on. Oh and we're not on about different companies here; also they're a different genre to what you're on about.

As for VBS3 vs ArmA 3: I only see one thing (the one you highlighted in bold) being similar on each. Maybe the animations/reworked UI but that's pushing it.

P.S. You take Wikipedia as a credible source against the word of developers?

[RushHour 11]

I take what is being viewed and look at it objectively. Just because it has slightly smaller maps, no specific training features does not mean it´s not a military sim, just that one is simulating much more stuff because they have to.

The word sandbox does not say anything about the realism, neither does "tactical shooter".

You can have a sandbox game on Nintendo 64 and you can have a tactical shooter in space with completely made up weapons that has no relation to reality whatsoever.

So how do we define the realism in games? Well you have three categories to put games in.

Arcade - Call of Duty. Braindead shooter type of game.

Simcade - Still arcade but has an element of realism in it, Battlefield 3, 4.

Simulation - This is where hardcore games is put, FSX, Train simulator, iRacing, Rfactor, Assetto Corsa, Red Orchestra 2. And of course, Arma series.

VBS is using the same engine, what differs these games is features. Like bigger maps, more work done to make it suitable for military training.

The fact that they are persistent with calling it sandbox (which says nothing about the realism of the game) is most likely because they already have a product they market as a simulator, they even have a company for those training programs.

Remove all those extra features and what you have is Arma.

you are getting so hung up on the fact that there´s another game built on the same engine with more features, therefore the previous cannot be a sim, which is ridiculous.

the whole point of Arma is to simulate warfare. When someone creates a mission they simulate their imaginative warfare whether it´s chopper attack, stealth, rescue, or just complete and total war on a field somewhere.

Edit2: You also made a point about a proper flight sim and Arma and Arma not living up to the standard of it. It´s true, but it´s also not the main goal. Arma´s range is so much wider then the guys who made the falcon flight sim.

This automatically means you cannot expect that level of quality across the platform.

Just take a thing as simulating a car. Dave Kaemmer who is the founder if iRacing has been working for over 5 years on a tire model. 5 years... for one aspect of one genre of games.

To expect that level of detail across the board is unrealistic and naive.

Guys who focus on one thing only will always do a better job then the person who has to do everything good.

A great example is F-35 and F-22. Because the F-35 has to do everything it will never be as good as the F-22 in the area where the F-22 excels.

It´s just not gonna happen no matter how much cash you throw at it.

Edited August 20, 2013 by RushHour

[comp_uter15776 1]

bleh.

I'm just going to point one part out as I'm growing tired of you not listening to what countless others have explained to you.

ArmA ISN'T a military simulator! there you go! You say "remove all those extra features" but that's like saying "if you added a couple of things to battlefield then you've got a simulator"... no, it's entirely wrong. Simulation isn't in ArmA as in any version (1/2/3) there are multiple things it is missing, that make it clearly different from a simulator. Simulation is meant to mimic life-like operations and ArmA doesn't do that. ArmA is sped up more for people to have fun. If BIS didn't make it fun then no-one would want to play ArmA. Here's an example. The wounding system in ArmA is pretty poor - you have a certain number of hitpoints, and a couple of areas which you can be hit i.e. arms, legs. If you get blown up, you ragdoll away in a spatter of blood and just die. VBS is a lot more intricate, especially when you have to go about healing. Because it *simulates* that. Wounding/healing is a part of war, and it simulates it. ArmA doesn't. ArmA also doesn't simulate other things too, and at the end of the day, it just doesn't cover enough to actually be a simulator.

So, you can continue to wish for it to be a simulator all you like, but no matter how hard you try, it's not going to be. End of.

[RushHour 11]

Oh it definitely is a simulator. You can believe the whole "no it´s a sandbox tactical shooter" that doesn´t say anything about the realism of the game at all.

Surely you must see the complications of your theory.

Again you are saying "this game has only some hitboxes, VBS has more, therefore one is not a simulator" which is preposterous.

Again, you have simracing companies doing exactly the same thing BI is doing. Having a vanilla version (still a simulator) for the commercial sector and then they have the same game but many many more features for the racing teams who use it as practice before they go to the real track. It´s the SAME principle used.

You can ignore all of these obvious facts if you want and just think that tactical shooter or sandbox say anything about realism but you are wrong.

You also haven´t read anything judging by your "bleh" or "blah", you are fixated on something that says nothing. <--- it´s very important that you fully understand this.

Edit2: Also "to have fun" is subjective, not a generalization that fits every person on this planet. It also does not quantify realism. But you knew that right.

Edit3: And just for fun, developer talking about a rifle in the livestream saying the shockwave can break someones neck in real life "but thankfully we are not simulating that"

Edited August 21, 2013 by RushHour

[chortles 263]

Besides what Comp_uter15776 said, this whole argument was a massively off-topic sidetrack from the OP's question, for which an answer could have been boiled down to "the level of detail of the flight simulation in Arma is nowhere near that of an all-jet game, much less Benchmark Sims 4.32 Update 6, and therefore 'learning the control and physics' of BMS will not help in Arma 3". Sorry OP. :(

[Lucasmnunesk 2]

You guys are taking this genre way too serious, why it hurts if one say its a sim, and other says its a game... w/e ArmA is ArmA and you're arguing about something useless that won't change anything in the end, just think what is the purpose of this discussion.

As for the OP ArmA aircrafts don't have that much of detail, they have their challenges but with some practice you can learn it with ease, maybe because of not enough manpower or design decision. IMO i prefer this way because you don't have to have specialized training so you could play as a Jet Pilot, but it would be cool if they could add these Flight Models for people wanting a harder challenge if it would be optional.

[SissiSaatana 1]

Haha, op man u trip dreaming :D arma with f16 near to falcon bms(I fly it too)in FM and avionics man I would love that too but that aside I think the biggest short coming of current air assets is the weapon targeting systems aka tab lock issue and stuff, we really need more realistic behavior for bombing, mavericks, radar,targeting pod etc. even properly working huds (CCIP,CCRP, dogfight mode, nav etc ... ) but yeah it's shit ton of work for someone lol :D

And I have to say this to other bms pilots: It always makes me smile when ppl claim arma to be a hard game to learn xD

And for those who are saying arma is sim I can only say imho: There are way too many things missing to arma be called a sim... check the air assets they are way arcade no where near sim level(they ain't even trying!), come on even bullet's aren't affected by the wind! spamming fak's to keep u alive etc... there is simply too much arcade stuff in arma to be called a sim maybe realism oriented tactical sandbox shooter (lol xD) . but yeah this is way of topic ,maybe an other thread but I just had to say this lol

[Von Quest 1161]

ArmA is however you use it. Its both a game and sim based on context. Semantics.

On behalf of BIS, please join the community! There will be lots of Jets coming in some

form or another. Having Jets supporting troops over Altis will be a mind-blower.

Typhoon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y01R9IB8E4Y&feature=c4-overview&list=UUehBjr-qzQmau3sgm_A8mxQ

Tornado:

*THIS IS CLASSIFIED*

[Beagle 684]

A simulator is a software that simulates real life procedures and Mechanics...and appart from balistic curves forprojectils there is nothign in ArmA thats really simulated.

The is more processsing power used in DCS to simulated every single turbine in itself on your plane than ArmA uses for the whole aircraft.

I tend to call ArmA a "Battle Emulator" since neither procedures nor mechanics of anyhting are simulated.

If you look for a combined Arms Simulator it's DCS or Steel Beasts PE.

Visually DCS has reached the point when you habe to look twice to se its just a PC consumer Simulation and there is currently no Sim with a bettr in depth and at the same time broad focus. (multiple Plattform Simulation)

real Simulatorsare rare and expensive...you can easily spend 200€ for it to have your combined Arms arsenal.

(that's roughly what I spend for all Planes and modificatiosn in Rise of Flight.)

Edited August 22, 2013 by Beagle

[comp_uter15776 1]

*THIS IS CLASSIFIED*

wut? lmfao.