All these new patches and we STILL can't use GPS inside the tank driver seat.

[bad benson 1733]

The lengths people go to justify things that aren't even design decisions, but simple gaps and oversights...

tell me about it.

[progamer 14]

Realism huh? Please tell me more about how a modernized tank in 2035 isn't going to have GPS for the driver simply because it's not his job to know where he's going? Especially when we're working on developing systems for all sorts of land vehicles that can basically drive themselves all in an effort to help ease the work load on the crew.

Never said I disagree with that. I just want whats realistic.

[squirrel0311 16]

Never said I disagree with that. I just want whats realistic.

Alright then, just looked as if you were trying to say that because Arma simulates combat, it can't be a game that people play for fun. I am totally for fun through realism, like someone else said.. I personally think one of the key points that made/ makes Arma great is it's vast amount of options..not just the less than arcade style.

...please delete...double trouble.....

Why? What good is having a thread for discussion if we can't disagree and discuss? I don't think anything has gotten out of hand.

[bad benson 1733]

uhm. i just made an accidental double post. i have nothing against any thread at all. you totally misread ;)

[squirrel0311 16]

uhm. i just made an accidental double post. i have nothing against any thread at all. you totally misread ;)

Ah I see, second time tonight I guess. haha I have seen it before though. :/

Again, I'd just like to say, although I can be a D when I need to. I don't mean to seem that way or like an Ahole in any of my above post. I just strongly disagree with someone wanting to limit something on the grounds of realism when in actuallity it just doesn't fit their play style. More options within reason is a good thing! Having a GPS for your driver isn't going to turn you into an unstoppable killing machine or keep you from working as a team.

And now... a little modified exerpt from my wishlist found on the Wishlist and Idea's - No Discussion. Page 213. I kind of think that a lot of these thread reflect this situation...

A Word about the Futuristic Setting: Arma 3 is set in 2035, a lot of people REALLY hate this concept. For some reason they believe that just because a game is set in the future, it can’t be realistic and therefore it must be shifting from the beloved milsim style game they once played and is now turning into Starship Troopers. ZOMG! The truth is that no one has said anything about spaceships and laser and as long as we keep it that way, I think we’ll be just fine. Personally I really like the future setting and the truth is all of the weapons and vehicles so far seem to be pretty well grounded to current technology standards…in fact I kind of think that some might have taken a step back…but I suppose that is realistic too. After all, defense contractors don’t always learn their lesson the first time. With that being said, in response to all the people crying for old weapons, vehicles and planes, I think it would be better to push BIS to focus on the REALISTIC FUTURE weapons and vehicles that they already have planned or are in the game, plus a few more… (See aircraft) Because of BIS’s limited time and resources I don’t think it would be practical to polish all the old content from Arma 2, instead that content should be polished and brought in from the mod community thanks to so many people wanting so many different things and what not.

It seems that a large portion of the community were hoping for and expecting just a modernized version of Arma 2 taking place in the present (2013-2014) rather than the future. Although I agree that it would have been a neat idea... It's simply not the case. BIS chose to go with the future setting and no amount of whining and complaining SHOULD OR IS GOING TO change that now. I don't mean that BIS should just do whatever they want and forget about what their customers want but some of the things that people are asking for don't follow the direction they are trying to take the game and need to be dismissed. (e.g. Asking for more distortion in NVG's, no depth percetion in thermal, or saying that tank gunners won't use LCD displays as their primary means for target aqqusition.)...Ordinarily these are valid points when talking about today's technology..but we're talking about 2035. When talking about limiting things...it's imporant to take a look at the technology we have now and make educated decisions on whether or not it's unreasonable to think that we wouldn't have made significant advancements in those areas by the time 2035 gets here, or are we just trying to apply Arma 2's limitation to the game to make us feel more at home?

That's the beauty of making a "GAME" that focuses on "Realism"...it allows for wiggle room when compared to a straight simulator and justification when compared to the average COD type shooter. You don't have to worry about static on the chopper blades or the current financial state of a country and if they'll even be able to afforde the equipment in the game,or if their government can even agree on paying for it...ahem... Anyway...You can include that stuff or you and make it up as you go along, not saying it's right or wrong... just saying... The point I want to make is... They left the game open to modding for a reason…

- Just my take on it.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Squirrel0311

[andersson 285]

I am sure the reason that we do not have a GPS as drivers is that BIS do not wan't to spend time building interiors for the tanks. They have said it before in interior discussions. It's too much work for something they consider unnecessary.

This is just an effect of that decision, it's not a design decision not to have GPS. They have to do a workaround if they wan't to enable it for us, or change their view on interiors.

Personally I completely disagree with this design decision.

Warning, I will digress a bit..

I honestly doubt they will fix it. From other design decisions I have a feeling they cater more for players using more UI and 3D views. Maybe most players play it that way, I don't know, but it sure seems like BIS design their content in that way.

Why put a start marker in a mission when you can turn on waypoint markers in the UI setting (there are official missions where the information of where you start is not there..). Why not dump a lot of enemies without thought how it will be if players turn of all difficulty settings, maybe most play with enemy tags on anyway..? Why fix this GPS issue when we can look at the tank from Lara Croft perspective and get a GPS?

Sure, turn all the difficulty options off and you will get a harder more challenging experience. The thing is, I don't want it more challenging, I want it more immersive. In OFP the missions and features played out nice regardless of settings, now it feels like I have to enable some help to not nerf myself into a frustrating situation.