Immersion, a flicker of hope for Realism

[antoineflemming 14]

It isn't about the weapons, it is all about what assets that the players will have to their disposal at the time. Being 2035, i am very sure that even though MX's have been adopted, doesn't mean that is all you will see 100%. There should be variety to what is used depending on the situation. You can look at Funker Videos on YouTube all day long and a ton of the weapons they use, will most likely continue to be used. M110's are going nowhere fast. Now of course, running around with a Lee En field is not something practical. But besides that point, the whole thing i am trying to get here, is a game mode created by the community, to be really immersive. Gameplay that includes variety for situations, and intensity that will make you want to duck down when things get real. Make you think on your feet, as a team, as well as in small squads working together for a common goal. But as i said before, it is simply an idea.

I wasn't talking about just weapons, but vehicles, uniforms, factions, time period. Just a slight correction that some here think that the game being 2035 makes it less of a sim.

[progamer 14]

I wasn't talking about just weapons, but vehicles, uniforms, factions, time period. Just a slight correction that some here think that the game being 2035 makes it less of a sim.

Yes if you pay attention to the weapons, BI tries there best to make them realistic. Take the Zubr for example, it's called the rhino and has a lower barrel to put the recoil back into your hand and not upwards. Though the Zubr currently lacks the correct caliber of round: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15462

Hopefully BI can see rough the "balance this" and anything else that goes away from realism.

[SFsoldier 10]

There are a few things I don't like about Arma 3.

The crosshair is not very good or useful. Not as good as Arma 2.

It is difficult to the aim grenade launcher. Not as good as Arma 2.

I think the post process effects in Arma 2 look better.

There is less blood and wounds than Arma 2.

On the plus side Arma 3 runs very well with a good fluid frame rate on my system. Arma 2 also runs very well.

Sound effects in Arma 3 are very good. Just got new speakers with subwoofer and Arma 2 sounds incredible.

Some of the vehicles in Arma 3 are not real and made up.

[Smurf 12]

I can only agree on the blood and I'm not even sure about it.

[antoineflemming 14]

There are a few things I don't like about Arma 3.

The crosshair is not very good or useful. Not as good as Arma 2.

It is difficult to the aim grenade launcher. Not as good as Arma 2.

I think the post process effects in Arma 2 look better.

There is less blood and wounds than Arma 2.

On the plus side Arma 3 runs very well with a good fluid frame rate on my system. Arma 2 also runs very well.

Sound effects in Arma 3 are very good. Just got new speakers with subwoofer and Arma 2 sounds incredible.

Some of the vehicles in Arma 3 are not real and made up.

Only a few of the vehicles are made up (the Ghosthawk and the Kaijman, both based heavily on real aircraft though). All ground vehicles are basically real, including the T-100.

[chortles 263]

In particular, the Ghosthawk is itself based on a publicly-known-of aircraft, probably also derived from publicly-available speculative renderings of the so-called "Stealth Hawk" concept.

[SFsoldier 10]

Military hardware not in service and based on speculative concept info are made up.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Military hardware not in service and based on speculative concept info are made up.

Well you gotta understand that they based their era off of 2035 to gain freedom to create what they wanted to for the game. As for most things, are real. KH-2002, AKA Katiba. MK20, or F-2000. AH-99 Blackfoot, in real life is the Boeing RAH-66 Comanche. Hell, even the Ifrit is real. No idea what it's real reporting name is though.

[chortles 263]

I've seen "ZIL Punisher" for that one.

[mistyronin 1181]

Military hardware not in service and based on speculative concept info are made up.

That's not true as DarkSideSixOfficial pointed most of the equipment is in service as today, and the rest are/were real prototypes; and the one that is neither of those is closely based on real vehicles that are on service.

But on the other hand, it has been announced for years and a lot of images have been shown, so you should know what to expect before buying the game.

[progamer 14]

Well you gotta understand that they based their era off of 2035 to gain freedom to create what they wanted to for the game. As for most things, are real. KH-2002, AKA Katiba. MK20, or F-2000. AH-99 Blackfoot, in real life is the Boeing RAH-66 Comanche. Hell, even the Ifrit is real. No idea what it's real reporting name is though.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n254/Peally/ZILPunisher.jpg

Not really more freedom, they want things realistic. The Merkava tank is one of the best in the world, it would win against american tanks. They listen to the feedback tracker and modify vehicles to be more realistic. The comanche's pilots seat is in front due to the fact it is partially a scout helicopter. The Ifrit is a Russian armored police vehicle. Due to feedback from the community, I see them leaning more so in terms of realistic standard weapons and vehicles now because they listen to the community.

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:42 ----------

That's not true as DarkSideSixOfficial pointed most of the equipment is in service as today, and the rest are/were real prototypes; and the one that is neither of those is closely based on real vehicles that are on service.

But on the other hand, it has been announced for years and a lot of images have been shown, so you should know what to expect before buying the game.

The game was supposed to be a scif-fi game originally, but after the reaction of the community it's now leaning back towards being modern and realistic.

[scrim 1]

Not more than the Apache really. The thought behind it was another gunship, but with stealth. The pilot in front seat concept already is used in the current Australian helicopter gunship for example.

Generally speaking, almost everything that can be found in A3 exists IRL. A few things (looking at you, Iranian infantry equipment) are completely made up, but other than that, it's all there IRL. The difference between A2 and A3 is that the latter isn't limited to American and Russian equipment, which seems to be quite sufficient for some people to scream "sci-fi fictional BS!!!!!!!!!1!" at the top of their lungs.

Really, the Iranian clothing and equipment aside, almost anything you can think of, I, and many others, can show you it exists, and is used today.

[SFsoldier 10]

The Boeing RAH-66 Comanche was a real aircraft but the project was cancelled in 2004. Just one example.

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/boeing/comanche.page

It's interesting they put in different hardware than was used in the other Arma series but possibly takes away from the realism of A1 and A2.

[ProfTournesol 956]

The game was supposed to be a scif-fi game originally, but after the reaction of the community it's now leaning back towards being modern and realistic.

Source ?

[antoineflemming 14]

Not really more freedom, they want things realistic. The Merkava tank is one of the best in the world, it would win against american tanks. They listen to the feedback tracker and modify vehicles to be more realistic. The comanche's pilots seat is in front due to the fact it is partially a scout helicopter. The Ifrit is a Russian armored police vehicle. Due to feedback from the community, I see them leaning more so in terms of realistic standard weapons and vehicles now because they listen to the community.

---------- Post added at 20:43 ---------- Previous post was at 20:42 ----------

The game was supposed to be a scif-fi game originally, but after the reaction of the community it's now leaning back towards being modern and realistic.

You are wrong. It was going to be more of a far-future game though, with a prototype rail gun specifically. That's it. Not sci fi, but again, anything that is not made before 2013 is considered sci fi by some...

[SFsoldier 10]

The main thing I am disappointed with in Arma 3 is the lack of realistic wound effects. Arma 1 and 2 were quite good but Arma 3 I've noticed less blood and wound effects. Some characters seem to be completely devoid of any upper body wound effects at all. You shoot a guy in the head and there's not a mark on him. You can't make a realistic combat game without realistic combat and the consequences of it on the participants. Try to justify it any way you want but it is not at all realistic. It's Playstation Xbox arcade console style. Reminds me of Far Cry 2 and looks similar.

Edited October 26, 2013 by SFsoldier

[mistyronin 1181]

The main thing I am disappointed with in Arma 3 is the lack of realistic wound effects. Arma 1 and 2 were quite good but Arma 3 I've noticed less blood and wound effects. Some characters seem to be completely devoid of any upper body wound effects at all. You shoot a guy in the head and there's not a mark on him. You can't make a realistic combat game without realistic combat and the consequences of it on the participants. Try to justify it any way you want but it is not at all realistic. It's Playstation Xbox arcade console style. Reminds me of Far Cry 2 and looks similar.

That has already been talked in the forums and even in the BI sitreps; mainly is due to a lack of time ( the same reason why not all the content was released on day 0 ). But according to that sitreps, they will try to improve that in future patches.

BTW check the forum rules. Double posting or open new threads about subjects that have already been talked in other threads is not allowed.

Edited October 26, 2013 by MistyRonin

[ProfTournesol 956]

The main thing I am disappointed with in Arma 3 is the lack of realistic wound effects. Arma 1 and 2 were quite good but Arma 3 I've noticed less blood and wound effects. Some characters seem to be completely devoid of any upper body wound effects at all. You shoot a guy in the head and there's not a mark on him. You can't make a realistic combat game without realistic combat and the consequences of it on the participants. Try to justify it any way you want but it is not at all realistic. It's Playstation Xbox arcade console style. Reminds me of Far Cry 2 and looks similar.

No need for double posting in different topics though.

[laverniusregalis 10]

Stance system.

AI improving every day.

Non-penetrating hits don't damage AFVs.

No magic rangefinding with spacebar making sniper gameplay actually work.

Basic FCS for tanks (admittedly shitty, atm).

Penetration config miles ahead of A2 in terms of functionality.

More consistent ability to kill crew inside vehicles (with a limitation for drivers)

Body armor (still pretty basic, but extant and easily improved upon)

Component damage for tanks (see above)

Shooting out engine with anti-materiel rifles

Comprehensive range of artillery warheads

Rocket ballistics that make follow gravity!

Realistic HEAT explosions

Better level of 'eye zoom'

Camo works better (on the player's end)

Weapons can be modified

Scopes now halfway realistic

That's just the random stuff that came to me in the moment. I forget most of the main things that we learned about back in Alpha.

I also found that we can damage the goddamn rotors on choppers using the sniper rifles. AWESOME, in addition to all the rest.

[progamer 14]

I also found that we can damage the goddamn rotors on choppers using the sniper rifles. AWESOME, in addition to all the rest.

Wouldn't there be a chance the bullet goes through and misses the rotors? Or is the bullet traveling to slow? I will test this tomorrow.

[laverniusregalis 10]

Wouldn't there be a chance the bullet goes through and misses the rotors? Or is the bullet traveling to slow? I will test this tomorrow.

It's difficult, I'd hop into the editor as a NATO sniper and set yourself as captive and take some shots from sitting stance at an Orca.

There are a few things I don't like about Arma 3.

The crosshair is not very good or useful. Not as good as Arma 2.

It is difficult to the aim grenade launcher. Not as good as Arma 2.

I think the post process effects in Arma 2 look better.

There is less blood and wounds than Arma 2.

On the plus side Arma 3 runs very well with a good fluid frame rate on my system. Arma 2 also runs very well.

Sound effects in Arma 3 are very good. Just got new speakers with subwoofer and Arma 2 sounds incredible.

Some of the vehicles in Arma 3 are not real and made up.

Just stahp.

Also, @OP the Ifrit is called the ZIL Punisher. Source:

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3748122/all/Hunter_in_real_world

[progamer 14]

It's difficult, I'd hop into the editor as a NATO sniper and set yourself as captive and take some shots from sitting stance at an Orca.

Just stahp.

Also, @OP the Ifrit is called the ZIL Punisher. Source:

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3748122/all/Hunter_in_real_world

Ooh, another bug for the feedback tracker. The Hunter is too small, along with the panther/namer and the Merkava Mk4.

It appears the hunter is the replacement for the Humvee, meaning it is realistic for us to have one and it is standard equipment. Yay! Though vehicle sizes need to be fixed.

[dm 9]

The Hunter is too small, along with the panther/namer and the Merkava Mk4.

...Though vehicle sizes need to be fixed.

I really dont get where this is coming from...

Here are 2 pics to match (roughly) the composition of the 2nd M-ATV picture linked in steamtex's post

Now, we don't know how tall the soldiers in the real photos are, and we know the A3 soldiers are above average height, but we can clearly see that the general scale and proportions are correct.

The wheels come up to the soldiers' waist in both A3 and real world.

In shot 1, the A3 soldier is actually a little short (the real world soldiers' shoulders are ABOVE the top line of the hood).

In shot 2, the A3 soldiers' shoulders reach the bottom of the door, and the top of his head (under the helmet and NVGs) is in line with the door handle.

So its pretty damn close. See my post here (and my linked post there) for reasoning why things look "off".

[Smurf 12]

Damn, those things are HUGE!

Wich makes me wish for a lighter, fasters, low profile vehicle in the future.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

and we know the A3 soldiers are above average height

Depends what country you're from. The A3 sample "Underwear model" is 1.824m tall (just shy of 6' tall in old money) when standing up straight using the old A1/A2 unarmed stance animation, so could pass for your average Dutchman (average male height in the Netherlands is 1.81m).

A3 soldiers are probably not on the spectrum of being "freakishly tall" at any rate.:)

But as you say, the issue is really down to FOV and camera height creating vertical foreshortening. IIRC Most FPS games tend to have the camera down at shoulder or even chest height, or adjust the relative scale of objects in the game world in order to make foreshortening feel more in tune to what we get with real-life FOV - at least that's what I used to be told by map designers in previous game communities I've modded for.