Realistic vehicles with fake names or unrealistic vehicles with fake names?

[progamer 14]

What would you rather have? Vehicles that are realistically based on the real life version? Or vehicles that are not based on the real life versions? I am speaking terms of each weapons current size, armor, weapon types and systems, behavior, damage and aesthetics. Though aesthetics could still have some room for creativity.

Check the is Arma 3 authentic thread for a list of what each vehicle is in real life: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?132745-Is-Arma-3-authentic

Vote up this ticket for realistic weapon and vehicle names: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15929

Realistic modern weapons and vehicles would be a better choice than old and cancelled vehicles and weapons: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15930

Stop trying to create unrealistic and balanced factions: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15931

Edited November 8, 2013 by ProGamer

[kilroy the nerd 14]

By realistic vehicles, do you mean they behave realistically, or they are like real life vehicles in what we have right now?

[progamer 14]

By realistic vehicles, do you mean they behave realistically, or they are like real life vehicles in what we have right now?

I mean weapon systems, damage, armor, and how they behave.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I don't feel those ArmA3 vehicles are unrealistic.

[paecmaker 23]

IMO I would rather want real vehicles to have their real names(but the thing is that different armies got different names on the same vehicle.)

However in A3 I dont think the names should be changed, it only takes more time and probably fucks up almost all missions.

[progamer 14]

I don't feel those ArmA3 vehicles are unrealistic.

This isn't for how they feel, it's for whether or not you want the correct caliber, realistic armor and damage.

[kilroy the nerd 14]

Fake names and realistic vehicles then.

The vehicles of A3 aren't terribly unrealistic, but they could probably use some tweaking. Some day I'd like to see a good Arma: Kavala Drifter, just for fun.

[progamer 14]

IMO I would rather want real vehicles to have their real names(but the thing is that different armies got different names on the same vehicle.)

However in A3 I dont think the names should be changed, it only takes more time and probably fucks up almost all missions.

I never said anything about name changes. While I hate the fake names, for whatever reason BI decided to have them. What I am referring to in this poll is whether or not they are true to the real life version.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I never said anything about name changes. While I hate the fake names, for whatever reason BI decided to have them. What I am referring to in this poll is whether or not they are true to the real life version.

But do they even exist ?

[progamer 14]

But do they even exist ?

Check the is Arma 3 authentic thread: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?132745-Is-Arma-3-authentic

The hunter is one of the types of MRAPS replacing humvees. Crows nests are becoming a thing of the past.

[mistyronin 1181]

But do they even exist ?

Most of the vanilla vehicles exist and in service or have existed as prototypes ( with the exception of the kajman which is a mixture if two real helis ).

In any case, as obvious, BI didn't use the real names to avoid legal problems and to allow more creativity. IMO BI devs were tired that some people were too obsesed with the realism in previous games, that they wanted a bit of freedom.

Besides that if Arma was the perfect military simulator, what would make VBS worth thousands of dollars?

[ProfTournesol 956]

Check the is Arma 3 authentic thread: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?132745-Is-Arma-3-authentic

The hunter is one of the types of MRAPS replacing humvees. Crows nests are becoming a thing of the past.

Yeah i know this topic, they all are more or less based on real things / projects, but how could i know how "unrealistic" those armor, systems, weapons etc. are, or not ? It's only a matter of "feeling" IMHO.

[progamer 14]

Yeah i know this topic, they all are more or less based on real things / projects, but how could i know how "unrealistic" those armor, systems, weapons etc. are, or not ? It's only a matter of "feeling" IMHO.

Weapons could be using the wrong caliber. Armor could not take as much damage as real life. Glass could not be bulletproof. The type of ammunition and clip size could not be realistic.

---------- Post added at 18:29 ---------- Previous post was at 18:28 ----------

Most of the vanilla vehicles exist and in service or have existed as prototypes ( with the exception of the kajman which is a mixture if two real helis ).

In any case, as obvious, BI didn't use the real names to avoid legal problems and to allow more creativity. IMO BI devs were tired that some people were too obsesed with the realism in previous games, that they wanted a bit of freedom.

Besides that if Arma was the perfect military simulator, what would make VBS worth thousands of dollars?

They never said anything like that. It was more to due with the recent legal issues between games and real life weapons and vehicles.

[squirrel0311 16]

Well I'm still not certain what you're talking about by unrealistic.... and as far as damage goes I haven't tried all the vehicles against all the others but I can say this...

More than likely BIS didn't have the funds to pay for licensing to use the correct vehicle names and since a lot of the vehicles aren't in wide spread service and are made by one company respectively... that could cause problems with people not being happy about a game using their product and not getting paid for it....especially if they are supposedly prided on being realistic yet do a crappy job representing the vehicles capabilities.

As for the weapons systems... I haven't seen anything too farfetched other than the tanks. (No coaxial gun or No commander gun and using High Explosive rounds only.) :/

So all in all I'd have to say I could give two dog turds about the proper names... If you like the vehicle then look it up and find out what it's really called, same with the weapons system names... I care about realistic movement, handling, ballistics/terminal, damage, and over all game play....

However one more thing about the damage and weapons... For those who think that certain factions or certain vehicles shouldn't have this or that....it's supposed to be the future and just like now, the battlefield changes and if you have an opportunity to equip your fighting force with up to date gear then that is what you will do! It's also not too far out there to think that armor might improve by 2035 and give vehicles the "Oomph" they need to sustain an extra rocket or two. Just like the people that whine about night vision being too clear or thermal being able to see depth...it's not that hard to believe that those advancements wouldn't have been achieved by 2035. I'd rather leave that stuff and focus on making a smooth running game.

As I've said before, it seems a lot of people crying about the vehicles and weapons in Arma 3 do so only because they wanted and expected it to be Arma 2 again with modern vehicles as the vanilla. That being said, it's just not the case so get over it. BIS chose a different direction and that’s what they should stick to. The vehicles and weapons aren't too futuristic, there aren't any lasers and phasers and as long as it stays that way we'll be just fine.

[progamer 14]

This isn't a complaint for another Arma 2. Is for making the game realistic like Arma 2 was and not some arcadic nightmare like BF or COD.

[squirrel0311 16]

Weapons could be using the wrong caliber. Armor could not take as much damage as real life. Glass could not be bulletproof. The type of ammunition and clip size could not be realistic.

I suppose I should have covered calibers as well... Weapons manufacturers often offer weapons in many different calibers to suit the wants of many potential buyers... this is something that is also taken into relatively great consideration when equipping a military force. You want to look at who you have a good chance of fighting and also who the biggest and the baddest are and then compare to see what kind of equipment you could use to at the very least, level the playing field. In times of economical instability or in other words...SHTF, sharing calibers with your foe could possibly yield great advantages. Why buy and ship bullets in when you can seize enemy supplies?

The same goes for ammunition capacities...manufacturers and aftermarket companies are always looking to expand their products usage and capabilities..... Why build a completely new IAR when you can just slap on a bigger mag or maybe a new belt fed receiver and use existing stuff from the weapon it replaced?

Also, I never said it was a complaint, just that I see a lot of people crying about this and that simply because someone said "futuristic". Although I still fail to see how the game is starting to feel like Battlefield or COD aside from the medical system and also repairing vehicles....which reminds me I have an idea to post about that too. All that goes without saying that there aren't other things they could have done better.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Squirrel0311

[progamer 14]

I suppose I should have covered calibers as well... Weapons manufacturers often offer weapons in many different calibers to suit the wants of many potential buyers... this is something that is also taken into relatively great consideration when equipping a military force. You want to look at who you have a good chance of fighting and also who the biggest and the baddest are and then compare to see what kind of equipment you could use to at the very least, level the playing field. In times of economical instability or in other words...SHTF, sharing calibers with your foe could possibly yield great advantages. Why buy and ship bullets in when you can seize enemy supplies?

The same goes for ammunition capacities...manufacturers and aftermarket companies are always looking to expand their products usage and capabilities..... Why build a completely new IAR when you can just slap on a bigger mag or maybe a new belt fed receiver and use existing stuff from the weapon it replaced?

Also, I never said it was a complaint, just that I see a lot of people crying about this and that simply because someone said "futuristic". Although I still fail to see how the game is starting to feel like Battlefield or COD aside from the medical system and also repairing vehicles....which reminds me I have an idea to post about that too. All that goes without saying that there aren't other things they could have done better.

The Zubr is currently a wrong caliber: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15462

The Merkava has the wrong caliber as well.

Why let your enemy result off of you?

[the_demongod 31]

While I hate the fake names, for whatever reason BI decided to have them.

From what I've read, BI decided that, instead of spending money on buying rights to use the names, they would spend the money in developing the important aspects of the game instead.

[NeuroFunker 11]

ah, here we are aback to "realistic". Arma 3 is already "realistic" as possible, for a tactical military sandbox shooter. VBS is where you want to have something "realistic"

[progamer 14]

ah, here we are aback to "realistic". Arma 3 is already "realistic" as possible, for a tactical military sandbox shooter. VBS is where you want to have something "realistic"

? Many things are still waiting for the time and resources to come available like the medical system. Saying go play VBS is not a solution as much as mods are not a solution to fix things. What's wrong with following Arma 2's view on realism?

BI listens to the community, people want the game to be realistic. To see for yourself, go through 10-20 pages from most voted on tickets here: http://feedback.arma3.com/plugin.php?page=Vote/list_bugs

Edited November 3, 2013 by ProGamer

[squirrel0311 16]

The Zubr is currently a wrong caliber: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=15462

The Merkava has the wrong caliber as well.

Why let your enemy result off of you?

Yes I know the tanks and probably the Zubr too are the wrong caliber because of time constraints... That's why I didn't say much about the tanks except point out the biggest issues.

As I outlined in my wishlist on the Community Wishes and ideas - No discussion thread... I'd like to see a few more calibers but I'm sure they don't have time to go back and work out the ballistics for such.

As for letting your enemy benefit off of you... That's something that has to be weighed by the ones making the shots. If you have a bigger or as big of a budget as the people you expect to be fighting then you might not care about matching calibers... But if not then it might be something to think about. I'm not saying positively that an army would or wouldn't... just that it's not unbelievable to have certain guns refitted to fire matching calibers. Personally I'd like to see the addition of the 7.62x39 and 54 as well as the .357 for the zubr.

[Harry Canyon 10]

I'd like to have realistic vehicles with real names.

[progamer 14]

I'd like to have realistic vehicles with real names.

Me too...

Maybe it will happen later in Arma 3's life, maybe it will not. But the atleast giving us the option to rename vehicles to the correct names with a script would be nice.

[Tyl3r99 41]

or the community will just correct this... lol

i havent got a problem with the current naming of vehicles.

yes the chassis are the same but the names do not really bother me

[laverniusregalis 10]

Me too...

Maybe it will happen later in Arma 3's life, maybe it will not. But the atleast giving us the option to rename vehicles to the correct names with a script would be nice.

BIS released the game without a campaign for a reason, yes? They had to make some more money to keep going. Logically that would be why they don't let us use the real names without mods, the designers/producers of the systems would want BIS to pay them to use the names.