Is Arma 3 a reasonable replacement for Arma 2?

[Ckrauslo 12]

What sold arma 3 for me is that it has a more realistic stability for shooting while moving, having the proper technique it's pretty much like in the game, but that also depend on the weight and length of the gun, the more length and weight harder to maintain it stable even while just walking..."That's why cqb uses little shorter guns" ... but i really wished for more realistic outfits, they took some models and exaggerated it...a real cry uniform is more pretty than this generic Bluefor uniform in Arma 3...and i really miss bigger quantity of content...but sure arma 2 to be what it is today took more than 3 years so... i'm waiting for the new dlc's to come out and see what it will be...of course the community makes it a lot better...can't wait to re-do arma 2 campaign using arma 3 stuff with AIA Replacement pack... "Operation harvest red has a more appealing story for me"

[sorophx 25]

not like in Arma 3 animations are a lot better. units look stiff, it's especially noticeable on transitions from one animation to another. I'm tired of seeing my unit sliding on the ground with his feet not moving

[Ckrauslo 12]

not like in Arma 3 animations are a lot better. units look stiff, it's especially noticeable on transitions from one animation to another. I'm tired of seeing my unit sliding on the ground with his feet not moving

this happen often to me when falling from a small wall like 2 or 3 feet

he starts to slide a little...or having to stop to change the gun

[Leader 0]

The net code is just well rubbish, BIS can't even give us a working flag for those of us that play CTF type games instead they try to reinvent god.

Get back to basics.

[sanguinius51 11]

Arma 3 wins hands down in engine, graphics and most features, however it still has that godawful problem of zero inertia to fix. It also has to add weapons collision with buildings, either simply blocking your movement or dynamically lowering the weapon, as in Ground Branch by Blackfoot Studios.

I mean seriously, breach and clear with an M320? How is that still possible? And I should not be able to do a 180-no scope with a lynx or an M320, that is plain stupid and whoever decided that simply removing any detrimental effect on the movement/rotation of the player to fix Arma 2's mouse acceleration is an idiot. Sure, Arma 2 was annoying in the way it handled your weapon movement, but it was a butt ton more realistic than this.

This game is also too balanced. Every MRAP, IFV, SPG, MLRS, Tank is the same, just with different armor strength which is not an acceptable substitute for variety. Heck, even the Katiba and MX feel EXACTLY the same. In Arma 2, you had massive technological differences, but neither side was grossly overpowered. When the Tunguska was discovered for Russia, it was the be all and end all - few, if any pilots could escape it's SAM, meaning that BLUFOR had extremely limited strike and support capability. Therefore, BLUFOR needs to respond by sending in its stronger tanks an aircraft - The Venom, Viper and for a short time the Apache allowed you to have ground based dominance. The game was inherently unbalanced, as is life, and here the best gameplay experiences came, when you were an underpowered Russia holding against BLUFOR.

[Bouben 3]

Arma 3 wins hands down in engine, graphics and most features, however it still has that godawful problem of zero inertia to fix. It also has to add weapons collision with buildings, either simply blocking your movement or dynamically lowering the weapon, as in Ground Branch by Blackfoot Studios.

Yes, I am affraid the inertia alone will not encourage players enough to use proper CQB weapons. The weapons collision system would definitely force them to do that just as you are forced in real life.

[chrisb 196]

Arma 3 wins hands down in engine, graphics and most features, however it still has that godawful problem of zero inertia to fix. It also has to add weapons collision with buildings, either simply blocking your movement or dynamically lowering the weapon, as in Ground Branch by Blackfoot Studios..

I remind you though, Ground Branch, may never see the light of day, examples from games yet to be released, that indeed may never be released, should not be used. If Ground Branch was released, I doubt it would fulfil all expectations.

I'm hooked into Star Citizen, money wise and 'hope' wise, I'm really keeping my fingers crossed that it comes out the way they say, but as with all games, A3 included, they all fall down, somewhere..

[sorophx 25]

Insurgency already does a lot of the stuff they are promising in Ground Branch. the only thing Insurgency is missing is SP missions, but they have COOP against AI on their PvP maps, at least

[landdon 0]

I am impressed by the engine and the size that the terrain maps can be created for the software. Though the new military hardware is futuristic and I understand the modelers would like to create something new, I still would like to see all of the past ARMA2, Armed Assault and ARMA: Cold War Assault gears, weapons, maps and units updated and brought into ARMA 3. I'm not talented to do it myself, and am I not a fan of the digital camouflage pattern on everything. I would certain pay money and purchase them if they were created as DCL add-on material.

[mordeaniischaos 3]

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.

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 ----------

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 ----------

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.

People thing ArmA 2 movement was more realistic because it was more difficult to work with, and clunkier. The truth is, the animation system/control scheme didn't let us take advantage of that stuff. In the real world, you have way better control over yourself than you did in ArmA 2. You could argue certain aspects are less realistic about the system in ArmA 3 but overall I think it's more realistic because walking through a door is only occasionally difficult, as opposed to ArmA 2 where getting even an M4 through a door was a challenge more often than not. ArmA 2 simply didn't allow us to manipulate the weapon or our bodies in a way that made the systems in place more realistic, so it just made the characters feel extremely clumsy.

As for ACE, we don't have a mature solution to replacing it, but we do have a few things you can bring together that are certainly a good start. AGM isn't perfect but it at least gets the basics in there. CES or whatever it's called looks like it could surpass ACE in a couple of ways even.

As for comparisons to Battlefield, I wish they could take some cues from that game on how mounting weapons with bipods worked. It actually felt like you were setting your weapon up rather than just getting a reduction in recoil.

[the_demongod 31]

Look at this picture. (1965)

Then look at this picture. (2000)

Now look at this. (2035)

I don't see how this isn't a perfectly feasible jump. The technology exists, the aesthetics are irrelevant; the US could take the same technology we have in standard US uniforms and create an entirely different looking uniform and helmet that did basically the same thing. We are familiar with a certain type of uniform because they haven't changed a whole lot since WWII or even before. Yes we've added to the uniforms and gotten new technology, but the layout remains the same.

CSAT designed their own uniform from square 1, starting now. They aren't building off of age-old designs like the US is, they created something new.

[j4you 10]

Look at this picture. (1965)

Then look at this picture. (2000)

Now look at this. (2035)

I don't see how this isn't a perfectly feasible jump. The technology exists, the aesthetics are irrelevant; the US could take the same technology we have in standard US uniforms and create an entirely different looking uniform and helmet that did basically the same thing. We are familiar with a certain type of uniform because they haven't changed a whole lot since WWII or even before. Yes we've added to the uniforms and gotten new technology, but the layout remains the same.

CSAT designed their own uniform from square 1, starting now. They aren't building off of age-old designs like the US is, they created something new.

Hi

I had already comment the concept about future uniforms in ArmA III :

I dont wont touch that argoment about 2035 age ,but if i must to be honest,i see that Uniforms--Choppers so ridicouls!

To go so far into the future brings not credibility to ArmA III,and frankly I did not feel the need,and because you can not call a thing realistic if you have not seen it in action,because otherwise even the Crysis nanosuite we can call it.. realistic!

...Who never know what will happen in the future ? :rolleyes:

I didnt say that may be in far future we will not see that uniforms,but you cant call this game realistic if that things still dosent exist.

In other words,it's just BIS fantasy...and there is a substantial difference in it!

Edited July 11, 2014 by j4you

[mistyronin 1181]

Look at this picture. (1965)

Then look at this picture. (2000)

Now look at this. (2035)

I don't see how this isn't a perfectly feasible jump.

IMO not the best photos, in the first and the second you got rifles from the same family and similar gear ( clothes, helmet, vest, boots ) the third is completely different.

You should compare with something like this ( the futuristic equipment of the Iranian Army, how Iran Army should look in about ten years ):

Edited July 11, 2014 by MistyRonin

[elpresidente 1]

you can not call a thing realistic if you have not seen it in action

Actually you can. According to the defintion of Oxford Dictionaries:

Having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected

So yes, you could call the uniform design realistic. At least plausible.

[j4you 10]

Actually you can. According to the defintion of Oxford Dictionaries:

So yes, you could call the uniform design realistic. At least plausible.

That mind that ,if i follow that......DICTIONARIES,and into 2035 that uniforms will not be realized...just in that case....we could come back here and say:

You see?...BIS were in mistake whit that uniforms?....but LOL!

Can I make a suggestion? ... Leave it to the dictionary and use your rational logic!

I belived just to the credibility of the past and present future...the rest is pure personal ideology and interpretation...and that mind that it's not TRUTH!

Just whit the exception that BIS staff does not have the gift of clairvoyance,because in that case................:notworthy:

Edited July 11, 2014 by j4you

[elpresidente 1]

if into 2035 that uniforms will not be realized.

I belived just to the credibility of the past and present future...

And that does matter in ArmA because...?

All the ArmA games never took place in our own reality/universe. The Arma games exist in the "Armaverse" (look it up in the wiki).

Heck, even Arma 2 hat prototype/not in use weapons.

The point is, BI made uniforms that they think could be used in 20 years in the Armaverse and that isn't that unrealistic considering the Armaverse is obiviously based on own universe. I'm pretty sure uniforms/suits that have a cooling unit integrated already exists (thats what does boxes are at the back of the csat uniforms)

Now astetically is a whole other topic...

[j4you 10]

And that does matter in ArmA because...?

All the ArmA games never took place in our own reality/universe. The Arma games exist in the "Armaverse" (look it up in the wiki).

Heck, even Arma 2 hat prototype/not in use weapons.

The point is, BI made uniforms that they think could be used in 20 years in the Armaverse and that isn't that unrealistic considering the Armaverse is obiviously based on own universe. I'm pretty sure uniforms/suits that have a cooling unit integrated already exists (thats what does boxes are at the back of the csat uniforms)

Now astetically is a whole other topic...

Again?

But before live from your home do you check some books definition for talk whit yourself?..before was Oxford Dictionaries now Wiki...What will be the next?...Madama Voodo?

This is a game right?

And how is classificated it?

Experience true combat gameplay in a massive military sandbox. Authentic, diverse, open - Arma 3 sends you to war.

You can fly whit the fantasy where you like....Saturn..Mart....Pandora...but if you call something Authentic,in Earth planet..it's mind that exist!

Edited July 11, 2014 by j4you

[elpresidente 1]

Again?

But before live from your home do you check some books definition for talk whit yourself?..before was Oxford Dictionaries now Wiki...What will be the next?...Madama Voodo?

This is a game right?

And how is classificated it?

Experience true combat gameplay in a massive military sandbox. Authentic, diverse, open - Arma 3 sends you to war.

You can fly whit the fantasy where you like....Saturn..Mart....Pandora...but if you call something Authentic,in Earth planet..it's mind that exist!

I would say a/c cooled battlesuits are reasonable authentic for the year 2035. But this is going nowhere

Oh and wiki I mean the Arma wiki which you can access at the top

Edited July 11, 2014 by ElPresidente

[j4you 10]

I would say a/c cooled battlesuits are reasonable authentic for the year 2035. But this is going nowhere

I give up!...givme a sec....

Edited July 12, 2014 by j4you

[chortles 263]

Funny thing is, that image makes the Katiba look like a perfectly appropriate choice for a 2035 setting, since the primary difference besides going with an optic rail by default would seem to be going from 5.56 mm to 6.5 mm.