Disable futuristic weapons, vehicles

[zork 10]

Hi,

I am currently using only RHS for weapons and vehicles. Is it possible to disable all core Arma 3 weapons and vehicles so that I dont see them in the editor?

[das attorney 858]

You could make a mod that sets their scope to 1 in the editor so they don't appear.

I wouldn't like to make that mod though, it's a tedious job.

[mistyronin 1181]

A good option IMHO would be an in-game menu / filter to discriminate which mods / vanilla content do you want to see in the editor and in Zeus.

But that's up to our beloved BI devs :)

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

Make a mod...

But tbh BIS please add more futuristic weapons/vehicles in Tanoa. Railguns pls.

[chortles 263]

But tbh BIS please add more futuristic weapons/vehicles in Tanoa. Railguns pls.

Pretty much this, what point is there to set a game in 2035 and then not have it be as "future warfare" as implied? If it's the gameplay issues with "everything is thermal and remote weapons for everybody", Bohemia... well, you chose to make the bed to lay in when you chose not to make a "traditional" Arma in the first place by making Futura. ;)

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Make a mod...

But tbh BIS please add more futuristic weapons/vehicles in Tanoa. Railguns pls.

Oh trust me, we'll see it. There's so many modern weapon systems out there that it would be like BIS as a teenage girl going to Victoria Secret for the first time.

[chortles 263]

And as Dwarden admitted, Arma 3's current vanilla content is actually behind the times in many areas in terms of what "future warfare" capabilities are in service now...

[soulis6 24]

And as Dwarden admitted, Arma 3's current vanilla content is actually behind the times in many areas in terms of what "future warfare" capabilities are in service now...

Pretty much. They could have set it in 2016 and no one would have batted an eye, in terms of tech. I just consider the 2035 setting a date error, and just treat it as modern day combat.

If they really want to push it into 2035, we'd need to see something some actual futuristic stuff. It would be cool to get some stuff like Optical Camo, small scale targeted EMP, more advanced heat/signature scanning tech, and more specialized drones (like that cargo UAV mod).

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Pretty much. They could have set it in 2016 and no one would have batted an eye, in terms of tech. I just consider the 2035 setting a date error, and just treat it as modern day combat.

This man wins this thread.

I imagine that the 2035 date is to allow a story time line where economical collapse and its associated effects have impacted the globe allowing the rise of CSAT.

[DancZer 65]

I'm the only one who don't care about the "future warfare" thing? You can play same matches in A3 just as in the A2 era. Except you hold MX in your hand and not M4. The game mechanic itself doesn't really changed. It's just got new theme.

[Devil Dogs SF 13]

I like the idea of the future warfare, however in it's current state I agree it may look as such in some cases, but definitely feels the same as ever (modern). Hopefully some assets can come along from BI that really feel future like, even if it's as simple as adding a huge focus on drone warfare, with perhaps more things that could potentially replace the ol' fleshy ground soldier, or make the actual human soldiers fear that advanced enemy drones/technology are hunting them.

[sttosin 67]

Pretty much this, what point is there to set a game in 2035 and then not have it be as "future warfare" as implied? If it's the gameplay issues with "everything is thermal and remote weapons for everybody", Bohemia... well, you chose to make the bed to lay in when you chose not to make a "traditional" Arma in the first place by making Futura. ;)

It's FuturArma!

[mistyronin 1181]

Pretty much. They could have set it in 2016 and no one would have batted an eye, in terms of tech. I just consider the 2035 setting a date error, and just treat it as modern day combat.

If they really want to push it into 2035, we'd need to see something some actual futuristic stuff. It would be cool to get some stuff like Optical Camo, small scale targeted EMP, more advanced heat/signature scanning tech, and more specialized drones (like that cargo UAV mod).

Uhm. If we check how was the military technology 20 years ago we will see that it was not that different from nowadays. So it's quite fair to say that military technology won't change much in the next 20 years (a few stuff that is now experimental will enter in service, but not much more). In fact a lot of A3 assets are nowadays experimental and by no means used broadly.

In the 90's we had for example the APC Mamba / MRAP

RQ-1 Predator

Even during the Vietnam war you can find drones.

That reminds me of futuristic movies... that depicted the 2000s as full of robots, etc. Like Back to the future, just check how they depicted 2015:

Edited July 23, 2015 by MistyRonin

[MusTanG 21]

Lol back to the future! Chicago Cubs win the 2015 world series!

[Joe98 92]

Hi,

I am currently using only RHS for weapons and vehicles.

What is "RHS" ?

[rundll.exe 12]

What is "RHS" ?

600+ posts, and you ask this? :j:

Please see the sig of MistyRonin , 3 posts up

[teilx 4]

600+ posts, and you ask this?

omg with 600+ posts he must read the whole forum or what? what a joke

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

omg with 600+ posts he must read the whole forum or what? what a joke

I couldn't imagine he meant it literally.

On a more serious note, future weapons... Have you guys ever watched the show? They show you all the tech soldiers are getting now. But what you guys see as Future and 2036, is far out of scope. The US military, or any other military would NEVER give their standard soldiers tech that is super advanced. That stuff only goes to Special operations or certain special soldiers. Most of that Future tech is developed by DARPA.

And I can sniff out a few places BIS made a big mistake in their series. Ghost Hawk, stealthy A-10, and Huron, first of all, who in the right mind would supply basic units with logistical vehicles that are stealth? Better yet, who would stealth a logistical vehicle in the first place? That's like making a stealth hammer. It's meant to be rugged, tough, and endure serious punishment by environment and working conditions, yet you throw stealth coating on it. Just so you guys know, stealth is SUPER easy to ruin in conditions where your flying low and buzzing enemies with a 20mm Gatling gun, yo don't want to stealth out a workhorse vehicle, ever. The best you can do is advanced countermeasures. For example, the F/A-18G Growler.

Anyhow, as someone mentioned, it is correct that tech in 2035 won't be much different from now. Tech in development now will probably be in testing phase by 2035. Vehicles like the EFV should be in service by 2035 however, which would be great news, I hope they add it. The AAV goes 7 knots, and the EFV goes more than 4x that speed when in water mode, with a 30mm cannon instead of a grenade launcher.

Now for the MX, I don't mind anymore, it resembles the ACR which could have replaced most AR platforms if everything went well. A modified version of the ACR for mass production being the MX, isn't unrealistic. As for things like the XM-307, hey should bring back the air burst technology. Then it wouldn't be a re-skinned MK-19 anymore.

Tech like the V-280 could be in flight testing phase by 2035, a vehicle meant to replace the Blackhawk. One could argue that the Ghost Hawk fills that role, but the V-280 would probably be a better alternative anyhow. It's a VTOL after all, it's armament configurable, and that makes it capable of clearing an LZ before deploying troops, and people a VTOL, it can launch and recover faster than the Ghosthawk.

But the truth remains, if you want future future tech? Won't happen. Most of that stuff won't effect us until more years than 2035, plus most "future" tech is developed for our covert forces. I would love to see some more interesting options though, and features, SUAV for example, being faster than a quad copter and resembling a white bird, people wouldn't know they're being scouted. In fact, I've seen some amazing things in Arma that are not even a mod. How about micro camera's? You can place a camera, assemble a desk with monitors, and literally watch the camera's feed live in game. THAT, would be sick.

Edited July 23, 2015 by DarkSideSixOfficial

[mistyronin 1181]

What is "RHS" ?

RHS stands for Red Hammer Studios, which is a group of dedicated modders, responsible for bringing top content to OFP and the Arma series of games since 2003. Nowadays our main project is to bring realistic and modern Russian and US Armed Forces assets for Arma 3 :)

In case you are interested you can know more in our official website.

- - -

I mainly share your analysis DarkSideSixOfficial. Tho for dozens of years the USAF has been trying by all means to get rid of the A-10 so it would be even more unlikely to have a stealth version of it in 2035

[rundll.exe 12]

omg with 600+ posts he must read the whole forum or what? what a joke

That's not what I mean. I can imagine if you have 600 posts here, you have at least some interest in mods right? Then it's quite surprising to miss the MANW winners :)

On-topic: There must be some way to automate the config-creation for hiding the BIS units, and set them to invisible, but you need some coding skills. Doing it by hand is not a fun job...

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

snip

Yes, but the Ghosthawk, Huron, and Wipeout are fuckin' badass!

...And it looks cool. :rolleyes:

[chortles 263]

Pretty much. They could have set it in 2016 and no one would have batted an eye, in terms of tech. I just consider the 2035 setting a date error, and just treat it as modern day combat.

Jokes about how unguided (unlased) bomb drops in Arma are basically WWII-style dive bombing... even Call of Duty (Black Ops II and Advanced Warfare) actually had the setting premise be reflected in gameplay.

If they really want to push it into 2035, we'd need to see something some actual futuristic stuff. It would be cool to get some stuff like Optical Camo, small scale targeted EMP, more advanced heat/signature scanning tech, and more specialized drones (like that cargo UAV mod).

That, and part of the reason that such a dissonance is striking... if the PLA ends up being the new OPFOR in Tanoa, have you seen some of what the PLA is fielding these days, much less what they're experimenting with? Such as lifting-strength-augmenting exokeletons??

This man wins this thread.

I imagine that the 2035 date is to allow a story time line where economical collapse and its associated effects have impacted the globe allowing the rise of CSAT.

Key item in that would be the "associated effects" -- the implied nature of US Army-standing-in-for-NATO as depicted (based on extropolating from their Editor faction assets) combined with some of the newsfeed blurbs and chatter suggests a decline instead of what "collapse" implies, hence divergent upgrading. For example, if the "F-35B" of Arma 2 is just supposed to be an armed Lockheed Martin X-35B, then the Armaverse US military managed to get that into service somehow -- presumably the same way that the US military of Live Free out Die Hard did -- so it could follow that there wasn't the same in-universe pressure to kill the A-10 so that the F-35 might live, the A-10 was allowed to live out its life cycle, and there presumably wasn't a pressure to deem A-10-style CAS obsolete. (That the Wipeout is basically a stealth A-10... USAF.txt? Before the F-35 they first tried to replace the A-10 with an A-16...) Indeed, if one considers how much of real-life lack-of-replacement was due to budgets (looking at you EFV) and/or daunting economies of scale (5.56 mm replacement) it seems that Arma's big difference was to treat them as not show-stoppers, hence why certain tech got into service in the Armaverse as replacements, I.e. the Mk30.

In particular, I believe that one author-intended "associated effect" to explain the 2035 time jump was so that formerly-known-as-Iran could field a "high-tech-looking" army which is seemingly structured along "conventional force" lines. That last part is important to my evaluation because I vaguely recall Karel Moricky stating (Gamescom 2012?) that the closer-to-symmetry BLUFOR and OPFOR -- that is, towards the opposite extreme from how OA posited BLUFOR vs. OPFOR -- was intentional. TL;DR: They decided what they wanted OPFOR to look like and then adjusted the storyline/timeframe to fit that instead of the other way around.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

Yes, but the Ghosthawk, Huron, and Wipeout are fuckin' badass!

...And it looks cool. :rolleyes:

Out of all of them... i think i only like the Ghosthawk. And, kind of the Wipeout, i just hate the engines and tilted tails.

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

At the end of the day people just need to remember that the Arma-verse is in a seperate time line to our own so BI have the creative liberty to make changes to factional equipment (thank fark for that because I am so freaking sick of the AR-15 and it's derivatives.)

Personally I love the concept of CSAT as a counter to NATO and it's really not that far fetch for 20 years in the future. Heck, imagine if this recent Iran deal passes US Congress and Iran's sanctions are lifted leading to an economical and societal upheaval in Iran resulting in the removal of Islamic hardliners and a period of great development. Throw in support from China/Russia and you'd have a world player in a very very short period of time.

I can't wait to see what faction reveals we get for Tanoa.

[chortles 263]

At the end of the day people just need to remember that the Arma-verse is in a seperate time line to our own so BI have the creative liberty to make changes to factional equipment (thank fark for that because I am so freaking sick of the AR-15 and it's derivatives.)

And unlike our timeline, the Armaverse's US Army managed to replace it twice; see Operation Arrowhead's Mk 16 before now. Even a theater-specific service rifle is more than we've seen out of our timeline's US military for non-SOF, though as I've said that's almost certainly due to authorial fiat not imposing the budgetary pressures, prioritizing, bureaucratic inertia, or even the "not better enough" rationales from our timeline... or the *coughvalarmorghulissothattheF-35canlivecough*

Personally I love the concept of CSAT as a counter to NATO and it's really not that far fetch for 20 years in the future. Heck, imagine if this recent Iran deal passes US Congress and Iran's sanctions are lifted leading to an economical and societal upheaval in Iran resulting in the removal of Islamic hardliners and a period of great development. Throw in support from China/Russia and you'd have a world player in a very very short period of time.

As said above, "a counter to NATO in a non-Soviet/Middle Eastern stereotypical style way" was the point of OPFOR this go-around... if that comment of Moricky's was representative of Bohemia's stance at the time then they were specifically going for a "peer competitor" OPFOR, a possibility which real-life strategists had been contemplating/commenting on in English as far back as the 1990s. Fast-forward to the mid-2010s...

Although, speaking of the 2010s, I wonder if the Armaverse (whose last pre-Arma 3 look-at was in Take On Helicopters) had its own mid-2010s "Pacific pivot" accompanying or following the events of Private Military Company, or whether the Chinese rise and corresponding US response were different enough that one didn't occur until the mid-2030s, or whether the one spoken of in Arma 3 is actually the latest "Pacific pivot"?