Is Arma 3 a reasonable replacement for Arma 2?

[DavidCastle 1]

I have always found it hard to believe that anyone could ever choose Arma 2 over Arma 3. I understood at the start that people disliked the lack of features of Arma 3, but they always then list features of Arma 2 that aren't vanilla features.

In my opinion, since the conception of Acre in Arma 3, which was weeks into Alpha, I saw no reason to ever look back. Mind you I played and still play with a weekly Arma 2 group, but even our group is slowly transitioning to Arma 3.

In it's current state with all the community mods, scripts, and maps, I cannot see any part of Arma 2 that Arma 3 does not mirror or beat.

Here are some features.

Weapon Resting: Arma 3 has it. Also, you don't need to press the shift+space or whatever you Ace settings are. The models calculate edges better in Arma 3, and since you have more firing positions, you can actually "MOLD" yourself to cover to rest you weapon much easier and in more realistic situations than in Arma 2.

Cover: Might as well state this since I covered weapon resting. The shooting positions allow you to utilize every ounce of cover you can. Arma 2 loves to put half shin high walls next to you so that you either have to lay down or expose 60% of your body.

Weapons: Really, there are a ton of mods for both. Different mods have different recoils, damages, ect ect. In the end, anyone who plays the standard ACE in Arma 2 can find weapons with very closely matching handling. The difference is you don't have to mess with weird Ace interact to change optics ect. etc. You can just slap on new scopes and lasers. If you want to get realistic and make certain scopes 5.56 or 7.62 scopes, just script it. Very easy.

Vehicles: The only thing that really has an un arguably bigger pool than Arma 3. Here's the thing, just like maps, you can convert all the Arma 2 vehicles over. Many are already done for you. Already many mods and scripts to make vehicles more realistic. IGload rocks.

Maps: You can convert any maps over. I've done Clafghan, Lingor, and Panthera myself. There are many already done for you.

Sounds: JSR2.1

Visuals: Blastcore

Map Editing: Zues makes editing so easy. If you can't script, there are already dozens of steam workshop missions that have exportable SQMs for what you place in Zues. MUCH easier than MCC Sandbox. Much more accurate too.

Animations: While still not the most authentic thing. It still feels more fluid than the Arma 2 animations. The physics allows your body to drop and react with whatever it falls on rather than playing some randomly instant death animation that doesn't match the victims angle of taking fire then becoming this flag strewn out body that hovers halfway over invisible something cuz he die on an object.

ACE: We now have AGM, more responsive. Cooler wounding system.... all in all, pretty cool. Also since backpacks are now just an item, no more dealing with ace backpacks.

Water: You can go underneath it now O_O

Weather: You can easily import NIM or other weather mods.

Communities: Already a ton playing since Alpha, even more now.

EDIT AI: This is also actually very important. I mostly play Arma 3 in TvT, but I do some Coops with some RL friends weekly. I can't recall the mods for AI we use from the top of my head, but I can tell you they flank, ambush, push, suppress, MUCH better than any Arma 2 AI i've experienced. I actually never played much with the vanilla AI in Arma 3, so for vanilla can't say much. With mods though, so much more aggresive and lifelike. Also controlling them, there is a program called Articulate which is completely bad ass. It uses voice recognition (requires an hour of good training) but increases immersion by a full degree. It's nice when I can give my AI orders with my voice and not have to mess around in any commanding menus.

Additional Content: I label the vanilla content (guns, maps, vehicles, etc.) as additional content, because with pretty much every aspect of Arma 2 already playable in Arma 3, I see all the Arma 3 content as just extra stuff. Anyways, I think it's pretty great and if we are comparing vanilla to vanilla, I like Arma 3 better. Altis - The variability of terrain is insane. What I mean is options. Take any 1square kilo of the map. Just look at the options for cover, movement, some firefight, etc etc. It's all pretty tight. It offers mountainous hilly regions, open rolling hills, even a salt flat/desert with flat nothingness, cities, towns, outposts, islands. When I compare Cherno and Taki (I actually like cherno a lot) I just don't like it as much. Plus it's so immersion breaking to be unable to enter a building in Cherno because it doesn't have a way in.

Eitherway, what do YOU guys think? These are just my opinions, and because of that (being opinions), there is no right or wrong. I am just curious as to why people still choose Arma 2. Maybe If I can understand their concerns, I can help more people see the possibilities or Arma 3 and help the eventual transition. I started in OPFP and I have always thought each iteration was better than the last. I know some people like the hold on to memories and are sentimental, I am too, but I always see things as phases of a greater whole... so maybe it's really that aspect of myself which has helped me embrace Arma 3 so much better.

Edited July 1, 2014 by DavidCastle

[Leg 10]

to answer: Yes

to explain: Arma 2 is worse in just about every way. It had a good 'lifespan' and lots of mods and players on it, but Arma3 only adds more and also runs smoother due to some optimizations to the engine. There's always been people who stay in older Armas and say they either a) can't run it or b) new game sucks, but statistically people who say b) are just whiners who can't run it and don't have it either way. A lot of people thus won't want to leave Arma2 just because they started playing it and many mods were made on it, and they find it difficult to jump to Arma3 due to differences, aside from the fact it's just an improved version of the same engine with more features. It will happen anyway, eventually. On my older computer, I didn't play Arma2 until a few years after, because I could only run OFP and Arma1, so I played those when I was younger, and I just said the same type of stuff depending on my mood. However, once I could run and was playing Arma2, no way I was going back. Same thing for Arma3. The movement style and improvements are too much, making Arma2 seem like a clunky mess; no way to go back once you're in it, even if you just play it once a month or so like I do. Arma2 people were still playing on gamespy servers until the day it died, besides being forewarned and given an alternative and time to switch. Afterwards they were confused 'why are there no servers?' That is the kind of quality and players mostly in Arma2. Have to spoon feed them due to lack of intelligence and being stubborn. Not saying it's not the same for Arma3 most of the time, but as always they should transition to the new engine. Arma is quite unique though due to many factors so it's hard to tell what direction it's actually taking. You are right in some ways. A lot of mods were created throughout Arma2's lifetime that are considered integral for most people, such as ACE, and their creators either left or don't seem that interested in Arma3, so more people have to make more mods. I would like to see an ACE type of mod for Arma3, which has a sort of all-encompassing realism aspect and improves everything to make the vanilla game more playable. However, it's kindof a boring experimental type of game to me. I don't really have fun or time playing any of them anymore, so it's up to the people who do I guess to make that decision.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Leg

[redarmy 422]

I have always found it hard to believe that anyone could ever choose Arma 2 over Arma 3. I understood at the start that people disliked the lack of features of Arma 3, but they always then list features of Arma 2 that aren't vanilla features.

In my opinion, since the conception of Acre in Arma 3, which was weeks into Alpha, I saw no reason to ever look back. Mind you I played and still play with a weekly Arma 2 group, but even our group is slowly transitioning to Arma 3.

In it's current state with all the community mods, scripts, and maps, I cannot see any part of Arma 2 that Arma 3 does not mirror or beat.

Here are some features.

Weapon Resting: Arma 3 has it. Also, you don't need to press the shift+space or whatever you Ace settings are. The models calculate edges better in Arma 3, and since you have more firing positions, you can actually "MOLD" yourself to cover to rest you weapon much easier and in more realistic situations than in Arma 2.

Cover: Might as well state this since I covered weapon resting. The shooting positions allow you to utilize every ounce of cover you can. Arma 2 loves to put half shin high walls next to you so that you either have to lay down or expose 60% of your body.

Weapons: Really, there are a ton of mods for both. Different mods have different recoils, damages, ect ect. In the end, anyone who plays the standard ACE in Arma 2 can find weapons with very closely matching handling. The difference is you don't have to mess with weird Ace interact to change optics ect. etc. You can just slap on new scopes and lasers. If you want to get realistic and make certain scopes 5.56 or 7.62 scopes, just script it. Very easy.

Vehicles: The only thing that really has an un arguably bigger pool than Arma 3. Here's the thing, just like maps, you can convert all the Arma 2 vehicles over. Many are already done for you. Already many mods and scripts to make vehicles more realistic. IGload rocks.

Maps: You can convert any maps over. I've done Clafghan, Lingor, and Panthera myself. There are many already done for you.

Sounds: JSR2.1

Visuals: Blastcore

Map Editing: Zues makes editing so easy. If you can't script, there are already dozens of steam workshop missions that have exportable SQMs for what you place in Zues. MUCH easier than MCC Sandbox. Much more accurate too.

Animations: While still not the most authentic thing. It still feels more fluid than the Arma 2 animations. The physics allows your body to drop and react with whatever it falls on rather than playing some randomly instant death animation that doesn't match the victims angle of taking fire then becoming this flag strewn out body that hovers halfway over invisible something cuz he die on an object.

ACE: We now have AGM, more responsive. Cooler wounding system.... all in all, pretty cool. Also since backpacks are now just an item, no more dealing with ace backpacks.

Water: You can go underneath it now O_O

Weather: You can easily import NIM or other weather mods.

Communities: Already a ton playing since Alpha, even more now.

EDIT AI: This is also actually very important. I mostly play Arma 3 in TvT, but I do some Coops with some RL friends weekly. I can't recall the mods for AI we use from the top of my head, but I can tell you they flank, ambush, push, suppress, MUCH better than any Arma 2 AI i've experienced. I actually never played much with the vanilla AI in Arma 3, so for vanilla can't say much. With mods though, so much more aggresive and lifelike. Also controlling them, there is a program called Articulate which is completely bad ass. It uses voice recognition (requires an hour of good training) but increases immersion by a full degree. It's nice when I can give my AI orders with my voice and not have to mess around in any commanding menus.

Additional Content: I label the vanilla content (guns, maps, vehicles, etc.) as additional content, because with pretty much every aspect of Arma 2 already playable in Arma 3, I see all the Arma 3 content as just extra stuff. Anyways, I think it's pretty great and if we are comparing vanilla to vanilla, I like Arma 3 better. Altis - The variability of terrain is insane. What I mean is options. Take any 1square kilo of the map. Just look at the options for cover, movement, some firefight, etc etc. It's all pretty tight. It offers mountainous hilly regions, open rolling hills, even a salt flat/desert with flat nothingness, cities, towns, outposts, islands. When I compare Cherno and Taki (I actually like cherno a lot) I just don't like it as much. Plus it's so immersion breaking to be unable to enter a building in Cherno because it doesn't have a way in.

Eitherway, what do YOU guys think? These are just my opinions, and because of that (being opinions), there is no right or wrong. I am just curious as to why people still choose Arma 2. Maybe If I can understand their concerns, I can help more people see the possibilities or Arma 3 and help the eventual transition. I started in OPFP and I have always thought each iteration was better than the last. I know some people like the hold on to memories and are sentimental, I am too, but I always see things as phases of a greater whole... so maybe it's really that aspect of myself which has helped me embrace Arma 3 so much better.

Thanks for the post.I had just posted earlier asking about weather i should purchase arma2.

It seems as the other guy said,it had a great lifespan,something your EA titles will NEVR in history have again since they started making the likes of battlefield an annuall thing. jesus christ! Greed ruins the gaming industry,thank you bohemia for being the top notch company you are.

I wanted to ask,you mentioned you ported over lingor etc?

I downloaded lingor for arma2,for my arma 3.My game crashes and i have A3MP installed.Is there any way i can use lingor in arma 3 yet?

Map looks badass.

[sorophx 25]

weapon resting in Arma 3? is that some new Arma 3 I haven't played? and you don't have to press anything for it to activate? wow, sounds like a dream

[BL1P 35]

ACE is available for Arma2 is the only thing better in arma2 than arma3

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ACE_Features

Edited July 2, 2014 by BL1P

[kilroy the nerd 14]

Even in vanilla alone, I still much prefer Arma 3. For one, I get better FPS with higher settings on a prettier game in comparison to Arma 2. Also, the driving, while no Grand Theft Auto IV, is still a quite nice improvement. I can't imagine playing Arma without Zeus anymore, either. And while I can't say I like the damage rifles do in Arma 3 with guys who have body armor, I can't say it's a gamebreaker either.

So yes, it's a very reasonable replacement for Arma 2. And if all else fails, mods to the rescue!

[Leader 0]

As a supporter of Arma 3 I am very disappointed in the direction BIS is taking, Arma 3 is becoming battlefield :(

[mistyronin 1181]

As a supporter of Arma 3 I am very disappointed in the direction BIS is taking, Arma 3 is becoming battlefield :(

What???

Is it because of the addition of the Take on Helicopters realistic flight system? The improvement of the fatigue? Better and smooth movement ( with more realistic animations )? The improvement in lightning and weather to make it more realistic? The partial addition of submarine warfare? The future addition of better marksmanship features?

Although IMO it's true that the pseudo sci fi theme breaks much of the immersion, but that can be solved with mods.

[sorophx 25]

better and smoother movement and realistic animations in Arma 3? since when? I have to see that

[DavidCastle 1]

Thanks for the post.I had just posted earlier asking about weather i should purchase arma2.

It seems as the other guy said,it had a great lifespan,something your EA titles will NEVR in history have again since they started making the likes of battlefield an annuall thing. jesus christ! Greed ruins the gaming industry,thank you bohemia for being the top notch company you are.

I wanted to ask,you mentioned you ported over lingor etc?

I downloaded lingor for arma2,for my arma 3.My game crashes and i have A3MP installed.Is there any way i can use lingor in arma 3 yet?

Map looks badass.

For most A2 maps, you just drag over the map, make sure you have all the dependencies (A2/OA vanilla pbos + any 3rd party stuff) and it works. I am not sure what to say about A3MP and Lingor. I did lingor before A3MP so I would just try doing a manual installation of dependencies. I know A3MP works with FATA since I just did it a few weeks ago though, so eitherway, just make sure you have no conflictions and you have everything you need for Lingor to run.

weapon resting in Arma 3? is that some new Arma 3 I haven't played? and you don't have to press anything for it to activate? wow, sounds like a dream

Most of the features I talked about for both were based on mods. For anyone playing with a group or community, there will 99% of the time be mods. But yes, TMR is a mod that just recognizes any cover in a pretty realistic manner around you and compares it to the elevation and distance of you gun and then displays a small little icon on the bottom of your screen to show you are resting your gun. =). I DO have to correct myself and say that you do have to press a button to use bipods though. Bipods is a second option available on top of weapon resting in TMR that allows you to deploy bipods with guns that have them. That seems ok though. In a real life situation, the speed at which you apply points of contact to your weapon when resting (w/o bipod) is extremely fast. Deploying a bipod is still fast, but usually does require pressing or releasing a lever.

---------- Post added at 17:50 ---------- Previous post was at 17:48 ----------

ACE is available for Arma2 is the only thing better in arma2 than arma3

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ACE_Features

I am very familiar with the features of ACE, but between AGM, TMR, other mods, and other scripts, you can easily create these same things within Arma 3. Any group playing with a community usually uses PWS so it's all an easy 1 click to DL a repo and hop in.

---------- Post added at 17:55 ---------- Previous post was at 17:50 ----------

As a supporter of Arma 3 I am very disappointed in the direction BIS is taking, Arma 3 is becoming battlefield :(

Not sure how? I love everything they are doing. They plan to redo flight, they are currently redoing weapons aiming and fatigue, and they even plan to redo ballistics. A lot of people compare the movement of Arma 3 to battlefield. I would disagree. You still have a more authentic movement acceleration and deceleration then BF3. What A3 did compared to A2 is allow the player more control of your character's body in a smoother fashion. When compared to any movements I do in real life just hiking (weaponless) or plinking on the range and moving in different positions (with weapon), I feel that it's not unrealistic to expect fast the fast transitions between stances or smooth movement of A3 to be unrealistic. In fact, I have always felt that controlling my character in Arma 2 was more like driving my character. It was super clunky.

[subs17 9]

Arma3 has a ways to go to be a full replacement to Arma2 as A2 has so many cool mods such as ACE 2 that make it a lot of fun. There is plenty of room on the hard drive for both sims though.(I even still have Arma1 lol and still use it.)

[DavidCastle 1]

What???

Is it because of the addition of the Take on Helicopters realistic flight system? The improvement of the fatigue? Better and smooth movement ( with more realistic animations )? The improvement in lightning and weather to make it more realistic? The partial addition of submarine warfare? The future addition of better marksmanship features?

Although IMO it's true that the pseudo sci fi theme breaks much of the immersion, but that can be solved with mods.

Honestly, I don't even see it as pseudo sci fi. When I look at the arsenals each team has, they already exist. Maybe not all countries have the same arsenal, but the US military for sure is already on A3's level. My friend who's been out working as a contractor for 3 years now says that when he left Iraq, they had already pretty much phased out humvees and MRAPs where all that were being driven around anymore. The humvees were either being handed to the Iraqis or used in aux. if MRAPs were unavailable. Drones - well I don't really need to start, we love those things, the big and small ones.

The only REAL sci-fi thing is that earthquake machine that's part of the story.

anyways, if you do wish to play asymmetric war with specifically an early 2000s military vs *enter 3rd world insurgency/army with soviet era hand me downs*, then mods do exist. Our group actually does a funny civil war setting. We even have a script that only allows you one shot with your gun (we use the enfield with modded incaccuracy) before having to press a button and do a reloading animation to get 1 more round in your gun.

---------- Post added at 18:05 ---------- Previous post was at 18:04 ----------

Arma3 has a ways to go to be a full replacement to Arma2 as A2 has so many cool mods such as ACE 2 that make it a lot of fun. There is plenty of room on the hard drive for both sims though.(I even still have Arma1 lol and still use it.)

Check out AGM and TMR. =). But yes, both still have room on my drive. I actually end up playing more A2 than A3 still. Mostly because the groups I play with are still in the transitioning/convincing members phase, but by the next year I am sure each group I play with will be pure A3.

[chortles 263]

Honestly, I don't even see it as pseudo sci fi. When I look at the arsenals each team has, they already exist. Maybe not all countries have the same arsenal, but the US military for sure is already on A3's level.

I'd add that Arma already diverged from "authenticity" as far back as OA with the US Army utilizing SCARs as service rifles...

[mistyronin 1181]

Honestly, I don't even see it as pseudo sci fi. When I look at the arsenals each team has, they already exist.

Have you seen the CSAT uniform, which country in the world use it? Or what country is working in that direction? The same weird turret fact? The US uniform and globes with metallic parts instead of the plastic protections in knees and elbows? The weird turbine shale of the A10? The use of an old experimental recon helo designed mainly to set targets for the Apache as a main attack one? The monster evolution of the Hind and the Mi28 and ka50 which army does use it? ( at least that one has certain logic because it would be more stable ).

I know why it's like that, and that the original idea with rail guns and aliens where most of the weird stuff came from would have been worst, but to it a pity how BI went so crazy with the setting. Obviously is not a major issue, because the game engine improvements are outstanding ( and IMO just for that is worth it ) and the setting can be "corrected" with mods. But in A2 I used to have and control a few mods, just to give some extra cool stuff, while in A3 I'm forced to use and track dozens of mods to have a basic start point ( that may not always be compatible, that sometimes got broken with the updates, or the author in all his right decides to abandon them, etc. ).

I'd add that Arma already diverged from "authenticity" as far back as OA with the US Army utilizing SCARs as service rifles...

That was just a minor "issue" that could be corrected assigning the M16/M4 from the USMC. But after all the SCAR family is in use inside the US Army ( just not as main rifle ).

[nodunit 397]

I'd add that Arma already diverged from "authenticity" as far back as OA with the US Army utilizing SCARs as service rifles...

We must go deeper, Arma 1 Armines.

[BL1P 35]

Nothing against AGM or TMR but they have a long way to go before they can be considered substitutes for ACE.

Like I say nothing against those two mods at all, they are great in there own rights.

Its just people are saying "oh you miss ACE try these mods" when in fact they come nowhere near to what ACE does/did/whatever :).

Yer I know fanboy !

[chrisb 196]

In answer to the title of this thread..

Reasonable replacement, possibly.

Good replacement, no, not anywhere near..

[Xalteva 10]

For me , arma 2 and arma 3 are two different games ,a3 is not really an evolution of a2 ! it's just a different context .

[sorophx 25]

that's kind of true. Arma 3 doesn't feel like an evolution of Arma 2, and that's very unfortunate. it feels like a game from a different studio, a game that tries to copy Arma 2. it reminds me of the latest Operation Flashpoint, actually. and that's a bad thing

[DavidCastle 1]

Have you seen the CSAT uniform, which country in the world use it? Or what country is working in that direction? The same weird turret fact? The US uniform and globes with metallic parts instead of the plastic protections in knees and elbows? The weird turbine shale of the A10? The use of an old experimental recon helo designed mainly to set targets for the Apache as a main attack one? The monster evolution of the Hind and the Mi28 and ka50 which army does use it? ( at least that one has certain logic because it would be more stable ).

I know why it's like that, and that the original idea with rail guns and aliens where most of the weird stuff came from would have been worst, but to it a pity how BI went so crazy with the setting. Obviously is not a major issue, because the game engine improvements are outstanding ( and IMO just for that is worth it ) and the setting can be "corrected" with mods. But in A2 I used to have and control a few mods, just to give some extra cool stuff, while in A3 I'm forced to use and track dozens of mods to have a basic start point ( that may not always be compatible, that sometimes got broken with the updates, or the author in all his right decides to abandon them, etc. ).

The technology within the CSAT helmet already exists. The basic aesthetics may vary, but it's something that is here now, and is very plausible. AUSA has been in development and testing by the US Army. It looks like the fricken Master Chief halo helmet. So let's sit back here and define sci-fi. To me sci-fi is functionality. Aesthetics doesn't matter to me since anyone who isn't familiar with military firearms would see the Tavor and FN2000 as sci-fi.

So if functionality makes something sci-fi, let's look at the CSAT helmet.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RWd0AwfuCOE/UT_tgvnYveI/AAAAAAAAH4E/odlpEyrqOzw/s640/Yusufzai.jpg

Nothing here is out of sense. The night vision seems normal. The dual eye heads up display seems plausible.

http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_165373?_afrLoop=2241519002317000&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=null&baeSessionId=XjQTT1TQYrKVTrhr1Rj28mTnbTGxCvxnJD8WDrTwv1TnVn6tY1hp!-1651352847#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dnull%26baeSessionId%3DXjQTT1TQYrKVTrhr1Rj28mTnbTGxCvxnJD8WDrTwv1TnVn6tY1hp%2521-1651352847%26_afrLoop%3D2241519002317000%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3D4lolutktp_4

That link shows it being tested. The fact that it is part of the helmet is not a "sci-fi" feature, rather it is just due to the fact that the same manufacturer in IRAN decided to combine the two since they were chosen to be manufacturer for both. This would make sense since I believe the weapons manufacturer in Iran is government run.

The shape of the helmet isn't that wierd at all, the bumps probably just house basic electronic requirements and sensors. The cable in the back goes to a small man portable computer.

As for metallic? How do you know they are not polymer? They look pretty polymer to me. In fact, many guns these days are polymer but look metal. I think They are polymer. Also it's not sci-fi to include polymer on the parts of the uniforms that are shown. It's a funding issue. If we had the money, all our BDUs would have polymer supports for joints and points of contact. The problem is funding doesn't allow for that; things that the soldier can "deal" with are usually cut from funding first.

As for the turrets, we have has thermal optics on our vehicles for a while. The turret isn't new at all. That has existed in our armor for a while now. I am sure, given the funding, we would throw thermal computerized turrets onto our basic ground vehicles. Given 21 more years, I can see funding becoming available to toss these things onto our MRAPs.

As for the A10s. Just looks like a modern re-design of the A10 / design using very similar concepts. Within the last decade we have seen these aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

Very similar. And in fact, the US military is debating retiring the A10 right now. If it does get retired, it has some old internals, it could be plausible in 5 years to see a the A164 "Wipeout".

As for the Comanche, how is that even sci-fi? It existed already? Yes, I do know what it's intended role was. It's use as the main attack helicopter for NATO, to me, isn't a sci-fi thing. Rather it's bohemia being weird. Either way, there is a chance the Comanche program was revived and refitted. The helo was a good one, it just died due to funding issues. The military decided it was better to refit current helos and work on UAVs than developt the AA systems of the Comanche. Otherwise, it was a good helo; albeit it was an expensive helo.

Dual rotars? Not sci-fi.

Railguns - if these were included, I might give you sci-fi points. But they were not.... though part of me wishes they were haha.

To me, for A3 to be sci-fi, you would have to have hover tanks, a new man portable weapon system (basically something that isn't direct impingement or gas piston), VISUAL cloaking technology, space lasers or any field laser for that matter, aliens(did Bohemia REALLY intend to put aliens in? I don't remember that in any seriousness anywhere), plasma anything, or the US winning the World Cup.

As for your problems with many mods in A3, I am not sure where you are having those problems. I shop like mad on Armaholic for mods, and if I enable a new gun mod that doesn't work, I just disable it. As for the core mods, I haven't found a core mod for A3 that conflicts yet. You can also build a repo on PWS then all it is from there is 1 click.

---------- Post added at 12:05 ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 ----------

Nothing against AGM or TMR but they have a long way to go before they can be considered substitutes for ACE.

Like I say nothing against those two mods at all, they are great in there own rights.

Its just people are saying "oh you miss ACE try these mods" when in fact they come nowhere near to what ACE does/did/whatever :).

Yer I know fanboy !

You are, and nothing wrong with that :)

Hmmm, I dunno though. I would like to argue that the if you take some of the features side by side of TMR and AGM to ACE, you would see from an objective point of view with an objective expected goal for each feature that TMR and AGM do just as well or better.

While ACE provided features that weren't really available in other A2 mods. I actually was always annoyed by it. I'd MUCH rather press a hotkey to put in earplugs than press a hotkey and 2 mouse clicks to put them in. Also some features such as weapon optic customizability (which is honestly just ends up switching your gun to a gun of a different classname anyways) is obsolete now with weapon attachments. Weapon resting is WAY better now as described in an earlier post. Medical system has all the morphine, bandages, epinephrine, and other stuff, except you actually treat the specific body part that is shot. IE: your leg is shot? Treat the leg.

Again, it's my opinion that TMR and AGM are better. But I really do thing you can objectively set a goal for why a feature exists and what it needs to accomplish and see that TMR and AGM can do it better. (assuming it exists, there ARE some features, most aren't used in 30 matches, that aren't in TMR and AGM).

---------- Post added at 12:22 ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 ----------

Really though, we can argue preferences all day.

What I really don't understand in A2 vs A3 is this.

How can you go through a single firefight in A2 next to that low brick/mud wall, and think in any way whatsoever that choosing between full prone, taking a full single knee, or fully standing as your only options is more immersive in any way what so ever than being able to realistically mold your body to cover with the multiple stances of A3.

How can you like running a long distance in A2 and then aiming down the sites to see that A2s version of simulating aiming while breathing fatigued is to make the visuals of your arms and weapons spaz out in a very sticatto manner around the screen, where as in A3 there is a smooth animation around the screen?

Probably one of the things I disliked the most about A2.

How can you enjoy the unit movement of A2, which feels like driving a car that just looks like a man, is better than A3. How can you say A3 movement is more unrealistic than A2 when any half fit skinny person in real life can move with the same ease in acceleration and decelleration. And just because A3 makes a movement toward the non-clunky now makes it a candidate to compare it to Battlefield?

How can you say the better visuals, including better rendered grass even on A2 maps, is better than A3? Sometimes in A2, I feel like certain areas were just made by some guy throwing a bucket of greenish yellow paint onto a 200m stretch, using a height tool here and there and calling that imerssive terrain.

While i respect everyone's opinion to like A2 better than A3 (i myself as I said before still play more A2).

I should specify that I am actually looking for an objective reason why A2 is better than A3/why A3 sucks here.

Unless you dig into some obscure feature that few groups use, I can't see any objective reason why any feature of A2 isn't done better in A3.

[mistyronin 1181]

It's nice to try to justify everything, but I would ask you to read slowly my post the next time.

The technology within the CSAT helmet already exists. The basic aesthetics may vary, but it's something that is here now, and is very plausible.

I said uniform. And you have not been able to show any country that uses a uniform bug-shaped and with the huge mechanic stuff in the back.

As for metallic? How do you know they are not polymer? They look pretty polymer to me.

To me it looks clearly metallic, the polymer doesn't reflect like metal. Besides the mechanic thing in the CSAT uniforms, looks clearly some kind of steampunk device.

As for the turrets.

I have not talked about the thermal optics, I said that all the factions use the same turret, which BTW is really bulky compared to the actual ones.

As for the A10s. Just looks like a modern re-design of the A10 / design using very similar concepts. Within the last decade we have seen these aircraft.

I said the turbine, which BTW doesn't have anything to do with design of the planes you linked.

to me, isn't a sci-fi thing. Rather it's bohemia being weird.

That's another chapter. But it would take too long to list all the weird inclusions.

tDual rotars? Not sci-fi.

I said nothing about dual rotors. I said the monster mixture of that three helos. That of course doesn't exist, it's again a futuristic fiction technology:

Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life. It often explores the potential consequences of scientific and other innovations, and has been called a "literature of ideas".

I'm pretty sure that this description defines the A3 futuristic setting; although usually sci-fi is based in technology that is available nowadays but not used with the same extend.

As for your problems with many mods in A3, I am not sure where you are having those problems. I shop like mad on Armaholic for mods, and if I enable a new gun mod that doesn't work, I just disable it. As for the core mods, I haven't found a core mod for A3 that conflicts yet.

Again your answer doesn't have any connection with what I said. I was talking that to get an actual / realistic setting ( which was the trademark of the OFP / Arma series until A3 ), I need to keep track of a lot of mods/addons, whose authors can discontinue the support, or change them completely ( like Majoris with the PLA ), etc. And if the mods are not update at the same time as the game, that provokes a lot of issues and incompatibilities. Besides that the people who wants to play my missions are forced to download a huge amount of addons/mods.

That was not needed before, as the setting used in the previous games of the series could fit the actual time or recent one ( 1985 in the OFP case ).

Edited July 3, 2014 by MistyRonin

[DavidCastle 1]

It's nice to try to justify everything, but I would ask you to read slowly my post the next time.

I said uniform. And you have not been able to show any country that uses a uniform bug-shaped and with the huge mechanic stuff in the back.

To me it looks clearly metallic, the polymer doesn't reflect like metal. Besides the mechanic thing in the CSAT uniforms, looks clearly some kind of steampunk device.

I have not talked about the thermal optics, I said that all the factions use the same turret, which BTW is really bulky compared to the actual ones.

I said the turbine, which BTW doesn't have anything to do with design of the planes you linked.

I said nothing about dual rotors. I said the monster mixture of that three helos. That of course doesn't exist, it's again a futuristic fiction technology:

I'm pretty sure that this description defines the A3 futuristic setting; although usually sci-fi is based in technology that is available nowadays but not used with the same extend.

Again your answer doesn't have any connection with what I said. I was talking that to get an actual / realistic setting ( which was the trademark of the OFP / Arma series until A3 ), I need to keep track of a lot of mods/addons, whose authors can discontinue the support, or change them completely ( like Majoris with the PLA ), etc. And if the mods are not update at the same time as the game, that provokes a lot of issues and incompatibilities. Besides that the people who wants to play my missions are forced to download a huge amount of addons/mods.

Of course I am justifying myself. That is how debates work. I started this thread specifically for this. I am glad you are actually responding with specifics. That is 100% what I am looking for. So ty for that. I don't see this as an argument, rather constructively debating the differences. What I am looking to get out of this all is the ability to concretely approach those in groups I am with that still play A2, reasons why they may enjoy A3-many don't even own or have played the game. This in turn helps our group move forward faster and puts us back into 1 solidified unit rather than 2 separate groups and thus nullifies and split of the group.

I think we have a differing definition of sci-fi. Thanks for the wiki link. In the wiki link, the only imaginative content that works is the fact that the game is in 2035. Can we define how far in the future counts as sci-fi? If we can't It would be plausible by that logic to say tomorrow is science fiction. In a story telling and immersive sense, I believe my stated features of sci-fi as well as the other stated features in the wiki article are what people tend to think of as sci-fi. You know, stuff like Halo, Starwars, Mass Effect, Star Trek.

I am guessing you are asking me to show you which country has the CSAT uniform based on me saying this. "Honestly, I don't even see it as pseudo sci fi. When I look at the arsenals each team has, they already exist. Maybe not all countries have the same arsenal, but the US military for sure is already on A3's level." This is a fault of mine. I should have worded better. When I say the arsenals each team has already exists, I don't mean to imply full production in service by on the ground troops. I mean the technology.

Obviously I can't show you which country currently has the CSAT uniform. That's an asinine question. You should have asked what part of the CSAT uniform seems unplausible, unrealistic, or has technology that doesn't exist. I don't see the technology as sci-fi though, it is more than likely cooling for an on board eletronics system or suit cooling. I do concur with the cooling system being metalic though now that we are on the same page as to what is metallic. As for steam punk... https://www.google.com/search?q=steam+punk&safe=off&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=VKW1U-r9FdajyASjoIB4&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=955 I don't think csat look similar at all. lol.

As for the turret thing. The only sentence I had to go off of was "The same weird turret fact?". I assumed you meant to turret technology was unrealistic. yes... haha It IS weird each faction has the same turret technology on their basic vehicles. While it would be expected that there is generally one most efficient way to put a rotating turret in a vehicle, having the same visuals on the computer system AND turret housing is really odd.

You said "The weird turbine shale of the A10?". I assume you meant Shell. Yes. I was talking about the same thing. The reason I posted those two planes is to show the visual and technological design differences between two different planes that looks very similar. I was comparing the reasons for those differences to the possible differences between A10 and A164. I was completely in context I think.

I said just "Dual Rotars" because is the first obviously visual difference from it predecessors. Still... it isn't sci fi. Nothing about it looking like 3 in existence vehicles is sci-fi.

In the end I think our definition of sci-fi differs. Yes we can post wiki articles. But I don't think all books, games, stories that follow that definition would be categorized as sci-fi. Futuristic settings tend to refer to teleporters, beam lasers, plasma guns, space ships, etc. Yes, I see A3's setting as fictional, I never denied that, but it's not science fictional.

It does have connection. I was explaining my experience with a shit load of mods and comparing it to yours. Honestly though, pretty much every mod in A2 can be imported to A3, and in A3 there are already mods for weapons and uniforms for a more of the common factions in conflict within the world today. As for finding mods that work together, I think you'd find more and more community members no longer supporting their A2 projects and moving to A3. Plus 80% of most repos ends up being maps anyways, so the extras few megs that you ask for someone to dl in a non map mod is miniscule..

But really, in the end though, vehicles, guns, factions, and maps from A2 can be moved or already exist in A3. That's not my concern. My concern is the main mod A3 doesn't have ACE and the base game engine. I truly believe objectively A3 does these things better.

---------- Post added at 13:18 ---------- Previous post was at 13:11 ----------

Also, kind of off topic.

But I think Arma 3 is actually BEHIND in some instances of what technologies will be available in 2035.

In this case optics technology.

http://tracking-point.com/

Check that out. This last invasion of Iraq by America (2nd Iraq war) was the first time magnified optics were actual standard on mass amounts of infantry (it was originally though magnified optics weren't durable enough or provided good enough accuracy to justify the funding. after some test runs with SF units, it was found they were WELL worth it). Since then we have seen great advances in magnified optics technology for the infantryman.

While the tracking point optic is expensive right now, taking into account the advances in computers AND optics in the last 2 decades, it would be safe to assume that you'd see smaller versions of these tracking point optics or other similar computerized optics assigned at the very least to marksmen within an infantry unit in the year 2035.

[Wiki 1558]

ArmA 2:

-Real gear / vehicles / weapons / etc... (and so it's better IMO)

-Better medic system (ArmA 3 one's a joke)

-Better FM for the A-10 compared to the A-164

ArmA 3:

-Better graphics

-Better physic

-Enhanced movements

-Maybe easier to use (IMO)

-Much more stable

-Increased performance

Stills sucks in both games:

-AI

-Pathfinding

-Campaign

-I surely forgot other things

However, the answer is YES, ArmA 3 is better than ArmA 2

[mistyronin 1181]

You said "The weird turbine shale of the A10?"

There is a typo, it was supposed to be "shape" instead of "shale" ( my finger slipped to the "l" key ).

About the rest, we could conclude that we have a different definitions for sci-fi, mine is wider ( basically any futuristic fiction ).

But even if the new setting causes revulsion in me, I still keep my first statement about the engine:

Obviously is not a major issue, because the game engine improvements are outstanding ( and IMO just for that is worth it ) and the setting can be "corrected" with mods.

[DavidCastle 1]

ArmA 2:

-Real gear / vehicles / weapons / etc... (and so it's better IMO)

-Better medic system (ArmA 3 one's a joke)

-Better FM for the A-10 compared to the A-164

ArmA 3:

-Better graphics

-Better physic

-Enhanced movements

-Maybe easier to use (IMO)

-Much more stable

-Increased performance

Stills sucks in both games:

-AI

-Pathfinding

-Campaign

-I surely forgot other things

However, the answer is YES, ArmA 3 is better than ArmA 2

All the gear in A2 has mod counterparts for A3 or can be ported to A3. Don't ever use A3s vanilla medic system ever. Please. Use AGM.

As for A10.

While i defended the A164 in it's plausibility and realism, I actually prefer using this A10c mod. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2fNm8nmarw It's a bitch to learn how to turn the damn thing on, but it's super fun.

---------- Post added at 14:05 ---------- Previous post was at 14:04 ----------

There is a typo, it was supposed to be "shape" instead of "shale" ( my finger slipped to the "l" key ).

About the rest, we could conclude that we have a different definitions for sci-fi, mine is wider ( basically any futuristic fiction ).

But even if the new setting causes revulsion in me, I still keep my first statement about the engine:

All good. On a side note, I really wish someone would port/make the Arma 1 starship troopers mod in A3 or even A2!!! that was fun shit!