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

[Harry Canyon 10]

Or most of these vehicles just plain don't exist.

[kilroy the nerd 14]

I think you mean T-100 is wrong caliber, says it's standard 135mm and then has a 120mm gun like the Merkava. Still, doesn't the Merkava MK4 have a 120mm gun as an upgrade over past Merkavas?

[progamer 14]

I think you mean T-100 is wrong caliber, says it's standard 135mm and then has a 120mm gun like the Merkava. Still, doesn't the Merkava MK4 have a 120mm gun as an upgrade over past Merkavas?

I only know of the Merkava Mk4, I would have to do some research for Opfors before.

---------- Post added at 00:07 ---------- Previous post was at 00:00 ----------

If the T-100 is based off the Black Eagle then the main cannon could be to 153mm and it would need to have a 7.62mm Coaxial weapon. and a 12.7mm anti aircraft gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Eagle_(tank)

---------- Post added at 00:16 ---------- Previous post was at 00:07 ----------

Though I do not know much about the in game model and what it is based on.

[squirrel0311 16]

Or most of these vehicles just plain don't exist.

What do you mean they don't exist? From what I remember there is only one vehicle that doesn't exist and that's the MI-48 Kajman which is just a mix of a Mi-28 Havoc, and a Mi-24 Hind but with a coaxial rotor.

[Grek 10]

Best idea: Realistic vehicles with realistic names

(ZAMAK is not ZAMAK, Its KAMAZ!) KAMskiy Auto Zavod - Kama Automobile Plant

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/9595/br5e.png (624 kB)

Edited November 3, 2013 by Grek

[king homer 1]

Best idea: Realistic vehicles with realistic names

(ZAMAK is not ZAMAK, Its KAMAZ!) KAMskiy Auto Zavod - Kama Automobile Plant

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/9595/br5e.png (624 kB)

+1

Voted for "other". Can't stand this future stuff, while most present vehicles and armor will remain for more than 20 years in the arsenals..

[NeuroFunker 11]

What do you mean they don't exist? From what I remember there is only one vehicle that doesn't exist and that's the MI-48 Kajman which is just a mix of a Mi-28 Havoc, and a Mi-24 Hind but with a coaxial rotor.

more like a mix of K-52 "Alligator" and Mi-28N "Night Stalker".

---------- Post added at 18:07 ---------- Previous post was at 18:05 ----------

btw any of you, who want to have realistic vehicles and weapon names, you are willing to pay BIS some millions for licensing pourposes?

Edited November 4, 2013 by NeuroFunker

[Grek 10]

you are willing to pay BIS some millions for licensing pourposes?

No problem in A2. Why?

[NeuroFunker 11]

No problem in A2. Why?

don't ask me.

[Grek 10]

don't ask me.

so if a2 its not a problem, logically use the same way in a3. Isnt it?

[Rovka 14]

I think whilst the US are very into sueing people on rights and all that, their industry likes to have their systems be portrayed in games as being a mighty tool of war, over nitpicking about rights.. It's beneficial to them to have people think like: Hey Abrams has thermal sights, T-90 doesnt. (BIS didn't introduce thermals to their A2 T-90 afterall, could be part of the deal in order to keep the American names, who knows?)

As for the Soviet build T-72.. The Soviet Union is no more, and the Russians don't want have anything to do with the aging T-72, especially not being associated with monkey-models torn apart in Iraq.. Atleast that's my guess why nobody whines about rights..

Or perhaps we don't know if BIS hits a certain amount of sales, or any sale for that matter, some percentage of the profit is paid to the industries for using actual names.. Simple fact is, I can speculate all I want, but heck even I don't know, and I don't want to know, because I don't need to know everything... Or else my brain would explode! :D But perhaps these are a few of no doubt many other reasons why..

[squirrel0311 16]

I think whilst the US are very into sueing people on rights and all that' date=' their industry likes to have their systems be portrayed in games as being a mighty tool of war, over nitpicking about rights.. It's beneficial to them to have people think like: Hey Abrams has thermal sights, T-90 doesnt. (BIS didn't introduce thermals to their A2 T-90 afterall, could be part of the deal in order to keep the American names, who knows?)

As for the Soviet build T-72.. The Soviet Union is no more, and the Russians don't want have anything to do with the aging T-72, especially not being associated with monkey-models torn apart in Iraq.. Atleast that's my guess why nobody whines about rights..

Or perhaps we don't know if BIS hits a certain amount of sales, or any sale for that matter, some percentage of the profit is paid to the industries for using actual names.. Simple fact is, I can speculate all I want, but heck even I don't know, and I don't want to know, because I don't need to know everything... Or else my brain would explode! :D But perhaps these are a few of no doubt many other reasons why..[/quote']

You're pretty much correct though not so much a mighty tool of war and certainly not just companies in the US. It's probably more accurate to say any company would like to have their product portrayed in a positive light.

Once you sign over the rights for someone to portay your product you normally don't have a say in how they use it... at least especially not when making a game...

At least if you charge a game developer to use your weapons you'll be getting paid while they make crappy portayals of your product.

---------- Post added at 05:45 ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 ----------

more like a mix of K-52 "Alligator" and Mi-28N "Night Stalker"

Yeah well that's why I said the coaxial rotor.. but the crew compartment looks a lot like a Mi-24 Hind and the whole concept of having transport helo's supporting the troops they drop off. Although many people don't know it but the Havoc's actually had a small compartment that would fit 3 people in emergency rescue operations.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Squirrel0311

[steele6 0]

big deal? I like the artistic licence given to the artists. some weapons are fake, some are based on a prototype in real life.

but, obviously this is a game. so its got to be balanced.

realism? some ATGM's shoot out to 20Km's away. that would suck in arma 3, becuse of balance, so I'm happy how things are.

names? whether I name my gun "assault Rifle 1" or " Death Dealing KIller of Terrorists! mark 1, 4" does that really impact the game?

[13islucky 10]

so if a2 its not a problem, logically use the same way in a3. Isnt it?

I think that it might have something to do with military designations. For example, any one can have an AK47 in a game, but you'd have to pay to have a Izhmash Avtomat Kalashnikova 47 in game. MX is a very generic but somewhat plausible designation, so is Mk20 or Mk18ABR. Remember how the Sting used to be called Scorpion Evo 4 and they had to change it?

[steele6 0]

guys, we are complaining about the way they have named something. I mean, really? guys? it doesnt matter.

[John Kozak 14]

No problem in A2. Why?

Because in A2, they used military designations, not actual names (=trademarks).

Note:

• Mk16/Mk17, not FN SCAR
  
• M4, not Colt M4
  
• M8, not H&K XM8
  
• M249, not FN Minimi
  

etc.

In ArmA 3, since the weapons/vehicles in question are not yet in service, they had to follow similar strategy and create fictional designations - otherwise, I guess, the license fees would be quite unliftable :) (this, of course, applies only to weapons which are acquirable outside US military).

If you ever launch one of the Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. series games, you'll notice there's a lot of trademarks of Dassault Aviacion, Eurofighter Consortium, etc. This implies that there were at least negotiations about the use of planes in the game.

Edited November 5, 2013 by DarkWanderer

[king homer 1]

I think whilst the US are very into sueing people on rights and all that' date=' their industry likes to have their systems be portrayed in games as being a mighty tool of war, over nitpicking about rights.. It's beneficial to them to have people think like: Hey Abrams has thermal sights, T-90 doesnt. (BIS didn't introduce thermals to their A2 T-90 afterall, could be part of the deal in order to keep the American names, who knows?)

[/quote']

Matter of fact, the represented T-90 model in Arma2 never received any thermal imaging, because T-90A with welded turret was the first one to be equipped with FLIR in 1999.

[progamer 14]

big deal? I like the artistic licence given to the artists. some weapons are fake, some are based on a prototype in real life.

but, obviously this is a game. so its got to be balanced.

realism? some ATGM's shoot out to 20Km's away. that would suck in arma 3, becuse of balance, so I'm happy how things are.

names? whether I name my gun "assault Rifle 1" or " Death Dealing KIller of Terrorists! mark 1, 4" does that really impact the game?

Range wise is ok like Arma 2, trying to balance all the other parts except AI is stupid.

That's really stupid, why not just tell most of the Arma 2 players to go download a mod to fix the game. Arma 2 never had any problems with the word sim, yet people in Arma 3 seem to hate that word now. Look at the feedback tracker here: http://feedback.arma3.com/plugin.php?page=Vote/list_bugs and the results to the poll. People want a realistic sim game and not some fake balanced stuff with artificial stats. Plenty of games give you that arcade gameplay you want with artificial stats. Let's not make Arma one of them. It's a downgrade of Arma 2 if realism is not held over balance.

---------- Post added at 17:05 ---------- Previous post was at 16:54 ----------

Download a mod if you want a game balanced with artificial stats, because you are the minority in the main game.

Edited November 5, 2013 by ProGamer

[laverniusregalis 10]

Range wise is ok like Arma 2, trying to balance all the other parts except AI is stupid.

That's really stupid, why not just tell most of the Arma 2 players to go download a mod to fix the game. Arma 2 never had any problems with the word sim, yet people in Arma 3 seem to hate that word now. Look at the feedback tracker here: http://feedback.arma3.com/plugin.php?page=Vote/list_bugs and the results to the poll. People want a realistic sim game and not some fake balanced stuff with artificial stats. Plenty of games give you that arcade gameplay you want with artificial stats. Let's not make Arma one of them. It's a downgrade of Arma 2 if realism is not held over balance.

---------- Post added at 17:05 ---------- Previous post was at 16:54 ----------

Download a mod if you want a game balanced with artificial stats, because you are the minority in the main game.

Most of A3's stuff didn't get an official designation/they needed a license to use it. So they made up their own military designations, just like how they called the SCAR the Mk16/17 (real designation) they had to come up with their own here.

Simplest explanation?

[progamer 14]

Most of A3's stuff didn't get an official designation/they needed a license to use it. So they made up their own military designations, just like how they called the SCAR the Mk16/17 (real designation) they had to come up with their own here.

Simplest explanation?

Never said anything about names. Just a gripe with people who think its not called the same so it isn't and doesn't have to be real.

[Kerc Kasha 102]

Never said anything about names. Just a gripe with people who think its not called the same so it isn't and doesn't have to be real.

It's more the fact that the different designation means it can be equipped differently. In the Merkava example, if ARMA 3 was supposed to be set in modern day with blufor being the IDF, then the Merkava missing the mortar etc etc would be a massive oversight.

But ARMA 3 is set in the future, with a fictional NATO joint task force that uses the chassis of the Merkava that has several features removed or changed.

A real life example would be the M113, a lot of armies used the M113 APC, for example West Germany had the designation M113A2 GE for the M113A2, it was largely the same as the US version but used a MG3 instead of the M2 .50 cal.

If you want a real example of bungling, look at RO2 as that game was trying to be historically accurate but messed it up big time, but because ARMA 3 is completely fictional and is based in a time period that hasn't even happened yet, there's absolutely no way of saying 'this is wrong' and saying it's 'unrealistic' is a 'no duh' statement because it only has a basis in reality but ultimately is fiction.

[progamer 14]

It's more the fact that the different designation means it can be equipped differently. In the Merkava example, if ARMA 3 was supposed to be set in modern day with blufor being the IDF, then the Merkava missing the mortar etc etc would be a massive oversight.

But ARMA 3 is set in the future, with a fictional NATO joint task force that uses the chassis of the Merkava that has several features removed or changed.

A real life example would be the M113, a lot of armies used the M113 APC, for example West Germany had the designation M113A2 GE for the M113A2, it was largely the same as the US version but used a MG3 instead of the M2 .50 cal.

If you want a real example of bungling, look at RO2 as that game was trying to be historically accurate but messed it up big time, but because ARMA 3 is completely fictional and is based in a time period that hasn't even happened yet, there's absolutely no way of saying 'this is wrong' and saying it's 'unrealistic' is a 'no duh' statement because it only has a basis in reality but ultimately is fiction.

The poll shows people want the mortar on the merkava and want the weapon to be like the current real world version. So RO2 messed up because it was realistic? Arma 3 should continue Arma 2's realistic direction.

Edited November 6, 2013 by ProGamer

[Kerc Kasha 102]

The poll shows people want the mortar on the merkava and want the weapon to be like the current real world version. So RO2 messed up because it was realistic? Arma 3 should continue Arma 2's realistic direction.

RO2 messed up because it wasn't realistic, it wanted to be historical but had weapons that didn't exist in the time period or the place it was set.

ARMA 3 is trying to have a basis in reality but isn't trying to simulate a time in history (nor is it simulating the present), so calling a change in weaponry 'unrealistic' is an oxymoron. It can't follow the realistic direction of ARMA 2 because it's set in the future and therefore has nothing to go off unless we all want a game that's set in 2030, but everyones using gear from 2013. So it's just 2013 in everything but name.

People might just want the mortar and the loadout - it doesn't mean they demand nothing but realism.

[progamer 14]

RO2 messed up because it wasn't realistic, it wanted to be historical but had weapons that didn't exist in the time period or the place it was set.

ARMA 3 is trying to have a basis in reality but isn't trying to simulate a time in history (nor is it simulating the present), so calling a change in weaponry 'unrealistic' is an oxymoron. It can't follow the realistic direction of ARMA 2 because it's set in the future and therefore has nothing to go off unless we all want a game that's set in 2030, but everyones using gear from 2013. So it's just 2013 in everything but name.

People might just want the mortar and the loadout - it doesn't mean they demand nothing but realism.

Considering Arma 2 drew in thousands before dayz with words like Milsim and realistic and now Arma 3's sudden change is troubling. No one cared whether or not things were balanced in Arma 2.

[laverniusregalis 10]

Considering Arma 2 drew in thousands before dayz with words like Milsim and realistic and now Arma 3's sudden change is troubling. No one cared whether or not things were balanced in Arma 2.

I really was hoping for better differences in factions, yeah.

Why do both factions have tracked SPGs? Why didn't it go like we thought it would - NATO gets a modified Marshall with an artillery system, CSAT gets the thing they do now.