No Bipods or ability to carry two rifles - Are you kidding me!?

[sorophx 25]

extremly easy to implement

oh, but this is where you're wrong. it's easy to hack your way around it and make a mod that makes you think you're using the bipod when you're not actually. it's not easy to make the bipod be a separate item that changes the weapon's behavior when used. they'd have to make new animations, adjust the existing configs for weapons, account for different surfaces etc.

besides, the bipods have been done to death. even the devs discussed it in detail right here on these very forums.

not that I disagree with you, the bipods should be in the game. just as there should be a proper body protection system, a proper interaction system, a proper squad command system etc. etc. the list goes on. but bitching on the forums will not make it happen sooner, unfortunately.

[Necramonium 10]

I don't know how, but weren't there some bipods in this game? I can clearly remember using one in one of the early showcases where you are a sniper and you had to call in artillery, i replayed that mission a month ago and no more bipod...

[Zatan13th 10]

make your own mod, seriously.

It is not hard to do a scripting or config coding. It is hard when come to hard-code engine scope, that's why BIS doesn't implement bipod yet.

Thus, I sure they have said several times that they like and want to see bipod system(and shooting from inside vehicle) in their game, but it is hard to implement this time.

[progamer 14]

Oh it most certainly is. You need to deprive yourself of rational and logical thinking to come up with another conclusion.

So far the most amazing argument against it has been, "it isn´t a simulator" or "VBS has a bigger island.."

Stupid arguments.

VBS has more features, that´s about it. It does not in any way detract from the fact that Arma series is a military simulator.

And yes i have played countless of simulators, especially simracing.

Just because the planes don´t have DCS level flight controls, the cars don´t have iRacing levels of simulation does NOT mean it´s not a military simulation.

It´s not a flight simulator, it´s not a car simulator, it´s not a weather simulator, it´s a military simulator.

In fact BI has dug themselves a huge hole with VBS. If they add features from VBS to Arma how would that affect VBS and the Bohemia Interactive Simulations company? Bad obviously.

So there´s a catch 22 here and the logical approach for BI is to refrain from using the word simulator when they have a whole company with the name that uses the same engine, same Nvidia PhysX just way more features.

Simple analogy:

Arcade - COD, Need for Speed etc.

Simcade - Battlefield 3, Project CARS, F1 2013, etc.

Simulation - iRacing, DCS, Star Citizen, Arma Series, VBS, Train Simulator, Farmer Simulator you name it.

Not a weather simulator? It's using cloud simulation software, meaning it's at least a cloud simulator.

---------- Post added at 04:16 ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 ----------

Yeah... it isn't a simulator. Blackshark is a simulator. Steelbeast pro is a simulator. Arma is not a simulator. Arma is a "realistic" sandbox game. How many times do the mods here & BI themselves have to tell people it isn't a simulator? Maybe if Maruk himself came into this thread and told you that Arma wasn't a simulator, then you guys would get the picture? The armor & aircraft in the Arma games especially, are NOT even close to being that of a simulation. It's laughable in that regard.

So instead if making things better and realistic, we tell people to go play VBS?

[Laqueesha 474]

It's not a simulator. It's a game with simulator elements. A developer even said this. VBS-2 is a simulator.

Nope, it's a game, with simulation elements. VBS is a simulator.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Laqueesha

[3instein 10]

I know this topic has been done to death, but I'm sure BI would like to see them in game as much as we do.

For them not to be in game, there must be some limitation or whatever which has not enabled them to do so, or I'm sure they would have been in ages ago.

Mick. :)

[vhs tape 10]

Wait for some time and it will pop up as an addon.

[RushHour 11]

Yeah... it isn't a simulator. Blackshark is a simulator. Steelbeast pro is a simulator. Arma is not a simulator. Arma is a "realistic" sandbox game. How many times do the mods here & BI themselves have to tell people it isn't a simulator? Maybe if Maruk himself came into this thread and told you that Arma wasn't a simulator, then you guys would get the picture? The armor & aircraft in the Arma games especially, are NOT even close to being that of a simulation. It's laughable in that regard.

Blackshark is a flight simulator, Steelbeast is an armored vehicle centric combat simulation. None of them even comes close to include the magnitude of variety as Arma can. Not even close. Just as Arma probably won´t ever be as close in terms of that level of armored vehicle combat.

So you see, you must not use logical and rational thinking when saying Arma series is not a simulator. Again people are focusing on the single aspect of how high the simulation levels are in each department, like airplanes, vehicles, damage simulation etc,

You must understand that Arma with the spectrum of stuff they have, they will never be able to reach those levels in each area. That´s common sense.

How much proof do you need? Both OFP and Arma 2 was branded by bi themselves as military simulations. Developers in livestreams have also said Arma 3 is a military simulator.

It´s a business choice for not using the right word for the game when discussing it´s realism compared to other games like Battlefield 3. They are not in the same league, not even close.

[marcai 1]

"Is Arma a simulator?" Better question: Who the f**k cares?

It is what it is, stop spending page after page of this forum arguing semantics just so you can win an internet argument. BI aren't going to say "Oh crap, some smart-arse on the forums has us rumbled! Best call it a sim implement all of those other features we have laying around and were holding back just because we didn't call it a simulator before!" alternatively "Oh damn, we best stop advertising Arma 3 as a simulator because it isn't one. Thankyou, clever forum poster, you saved us a lot of embarrassment there! We are forever in your debt!" You're having the most meaningless argument about semantics that is currently active on this forum. Congrats on that.

On topic: We all agree that we'd like bipods to work. You can carry a gun in your backpack, although replacing your AT slot with a secondary weapon would also be nice. I don't personally see much use in having a second gun prepared on my back, but I agree it would be a useful feature to perhaps carry both a LMG and a rifle if one of your squad mates dies and you want to save bag space.

[RushHour 11]

It´s not semantics.

It´s like saying a movie with some xxx material doesn´t matter what rating it gets.

"Who cares if there are titties in the movie, let´s rate it minimum 8 years old, it´s just semantics...."

It´s not.

Neither sandbox or tactical shooter says anything about the realism factor. Counter Strike is a tactical shooter. And you´d have to be in lala-land to say they are in the same realism sector.

All you need to do is research the history of Bohemia Interactive, and BI Simulations then connect the dots.

[CaptianDumbo 10]

Just to end the debate on whether it is a simulator or not: BIS stated themselves that it is a "military sandbox" so if you want to go by the actual developer/creator of the game then it is not a simulator. As much as I want to say it is a simulator officially it is not.

-Also bummed about the Bipods but I use the TMR mod which has a great weapon resting/bipod system.

[progamer 14]

Just to end the debate on whether it is a simulator or not: BIS stated themselves that it is a "military sandbox" so if you want to go by the actual developer/creator of the game then it is not a simulator. As much as I want to say it is a simulator officially it is not.

-Also bummed about the Bipods but I use the TMR mod which has a great weapon resting/bipod system.

BIS have also said it is a combined arms simulator. But we shouldn't use the excuses to go play VBS if you want realism or certain features because who has the money for them and all there freinds to afford that?

Since when has saying Arma could learn from VBS been a bad thing? The FT shows people want things similar to VBS.

Edited September 14, 2013 by ProGamer

[marcai 1]

This internet webpage is named a forum, but its clearly an online discussion simulator.

See, you instruct me to do al of this RushHour, but what is your point? Is there actually a point to be made, or are you simply repeatedly making arguments for the sake of it. I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to be outraged by.

[aop 1]

If you don't think ArmA 3 is a military simulation, then maybe BIS should stop advertising it as one?

http://koti.mbnet.fi/aop13/arma3notsim.png (357 kB)

[suprememodder 11]

it's the least they could do.

[aop 1]

it's the least they could do.

Or the fanboy brigade could admit this game is considered a simulation and it is missing some pretty important features.

[suprememodder 11]

i think that would require them to have at least some expectation or desire to see those features. but it's clear they're satisfied with what they have. a buggy, sluggish battlefield wannabe with less fluid movement.

[RushHour 11]

This internet webpage is named a forum, but its clearly an online discussion simulator.

See, you instruct me to do al of this RushHour, but what is your point? Is there actually a point to be made, or are you simply repeatedly making arguments for the sake of it. I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to be outraged by.

the problem is your arguments hold no weight.

And in terms of internet forums being a simulation....I would not exclude life being one huge simulation. We just don´t know for a fact atm. Mathematics is a surprisingly good tool for the universe.

What happens is weak arguments have no weight, no logics, no rational thinking behind it.

Wow me, just once marcai... I dare you.

Just one logical explanation would do, so far your friends have failed in every level.

It´s not about semantics, it´s about realism and how to quantify it.

[marcai 1]

Or the fanboy brigade could admit this game is considered a simulation and it is missing some pretty important features.

I'm a 'fanboy' because I think arguing about what genre the game is and isn't is stupid? You're derailing a thread that you could use for genuine critique in order to say 'look, it says simulator!' without actually having a point as to what it would change if they labelled it differently.

Let me ask you this important question: When does a game stop being a game and become a simulator? Is Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon a badass simulator or an action fps game? Doesn't every game emulate some form of simulation and role-playing? Does that mean every game that you play as a character at least should be an RPG/Sim in some way? Arguably, are the constraints of what is and isn't in a genre a totally subjective thing? Again -more importantly- why does what its genre is labelled as even matter so much to you? You obviously can't simulate anywhere near everything that will happen to a soldier in a combat zone whilst sat behind a keyboard and mouse setup in your house, and so you can argue that there never will be a real 'simulator' of anything. This is why I stated a few posts back that this is purely a semantic issue, and your complaints are merely requests for features which you see as integral for a better game, which isn't a bad thing.

i think that would require them to have at least some expectation or desire to see those features. but it's clear they're satisfied with what they have. a buggy, sluggish battlefield wannabe with less fluid movement.

[insert Source Here]

The forums are abuzz with people requesting features and asking for things to be fixed, from animations to new gear. Few people are happy 'as is', but Arma still holds its own as a good game thanks to used-made mission content. As for your Battlefield argument, aspiring to be as good as BF is an apt goal, as its a damned good game in its own right. If BIS could get the animation, graphical and phsyics quality close to par with BF whilst keeping the huge scope and scale of Arma's maps, vehicles and troop types, I'd be in heaven.

Edit: Unintentionally met a dare whilst writing this. It's like being twelve again! Yaay!

[PN11A 2]

ARMA is not a simulation, I can fly a helicopter in ARMA I cannot even begin to figure out what is in the cockpit when i get in a real Blackhawk. Simulations are used as a training aid, there is no training value to be had in ARMA 3. Considering the AI dont respond properly, and the simplicity of the medical system I would say its far from a simulation. Think of it like this \Game==cod/bfg============arma======vbs=flight sim Simulation\

[dmarkwick 261]

Really? 5 pages of bickering over the definition of simulator, sandbox, game etc? Like it makes any kind of difference whatsoever? Great work guys :D

[RuecanOnRails 10]

This got ugly quick haha.

Just wanted to add a note about bi-pods and my opinion on it.

When BIS add a feature to the game, they follow through fully with that feature the best they can. This means for bi-pods to be implemented they have to work fully for both player and AI, along with identifying surfaces which can be used to deploy the bi-pods. While it may sound simple, it would add a bunch of extra routines for the AI which would cause a performance drop. The AI when in combat would constantly be posed with the additional options of whether deploy, where to deploy, if they remain in cover while deployed, and when to return to formation.

By allowing the community to create and implement scripts which allow only players to set up bi-pods is faster, and has no performance hit. You also aren't required to allocate man power for coding these features while on a deadline.

A lot of these small "features" which seem easy are left to the community because the amount efforts involved in fully implementing them just isn't feasible. Especially with such a talented modding community which is able to add exactly what they want and nothing more/less.

[metalcraze 290]

OFP/ArmA1/ArmA2 were infantry simulators.

ArmA3 is an arcade sandbox shooter with all realism gone.

Doesn't mean it shouldn't have bipods like other arcade shooters.

The end.

[dale0404 5]

OFP/ArmA1/ArmA2 were infantry simulators.

ArmA3 is an arcade sandbox shooter with all realism gone.

Doesn't mean it shouldn't have bipods like other arcade shooters.

The end.

Over reacting once again there metalcraze.... You know that there is realism in A3 but not enough for your taste. Isn't that a better way of putting things rather than going off the deep end?

[dmarkwick 261]

Over reacting once again there metalcraze.... You know that there is realism in A3 but not enough for your taste. Isn't that a better way of putting things rather than going off the deep end?

If there is one single thing that MC doesn't like, then it's all realism gone. Never sees what it can do, only what it cannot.