How Much Realism are you Content With?

[An-225 0]

Well, I think we can all agree that ArmA's strongpoint is its realism. It has attempted to do what no other commercial game has done. I also think we can all agree, that too much realism can and will harm gameplay.

I'm interested, in what the community thinks on this issue. What constitutes or defines the point at which gameplay is harmed?

I fly LO:MAC and FSX, mostly. I am comfortable with the basic operation of N001, and have learned most of the startup checklist on the C-130. In my opinion, these are two examples where gameplay would be harmed by way of too much realism.

There would be overly long startup times in the C-130 which would effectively limit the player to one aircraft type, and targeting would be overly complicated for any plane with the N001 radar.

The same effects can be replicated through very simple commands, such as Engine On for startup or TAB for the radar.

BIS have stated that there will be no overly complicated systems modeled in ArmA 2.

However, I think what the community, or at least the majority of the community, would like to see realism in terms of each units capability. It would be very hard to spot enemy soldiers with a UAV when they are camouflaged, no? Thats what FLIR is for. This would not necessarily entail detailed systems, but it does give an accurate depiction of the capability of UAVs in real life.

The same may be said for the FCS on a tank. Not a highly intricate system, but it reflects the vehicle's capability in real life.

The Javelin does not truly have the need for direct/top attack ability. But a relatively simple change of background to an accurate CLU and perhaps a change between normal and IR modes would be a relatively accurate, yet simple depiction.

These are only a few examples.

What is it that defines realistic? What would be going overboard? Realistic optics, ballistics, capabilities?

It would be interesting to hear what other people think.

[maddogx 13]

I believe the only aspects of realism that would be percieved as negative, are those that would add tedious tasks to the gameplay. An example, like you said, would be extensive startup sequences on vehicles. Generally anything that takes a long time to do and/or requires players to memorize long sequences of actions is bad. Having to dismantle and reassemble rifles manually would also suck, for example.

In my opinion, anything like realistic optics, ballistics etc. are great because at the very most they can add to the immersion of the game, and at the very least they won't even be noticed. As long as something is realistic and doesn't require any overly complicated or tedious tasks from the player, it should be fine.

[kegetys 2]

I think a good way to go in terms of all the "high-tech" weapon systems, avionics, etc. is to do something like Dangerous Waters does. That is to build one simplified system(like a radar, RWR, sonar, or a tank fire control system) which is easy to use, but with realistic capabilities and properties and adapt that to each platform with some cosmetic/UI changes to make them feel a bit different.

For ArmA2 for example an extremely important feature in my opinion would be to have a modern tank fire control system with a laser rangefinder and automatic elevation+lead. It would not need to be made the same way as it is in each of the real tanks, but to have the procedure of what you need to do to hit to be realistic, like:

- Point your sight to the target

- Hit the lase key

- (if the target is moving) follow the target with the sight

- Fire

With one system like this done it could be put into all tanks that have a fire control system in real life and you'd get realistic capabilities to all of them and a huge increase in realism with very little effort. You wouldn't click on all the same knobs a real abrams gunner uses or even see the same things a real gunner does but you could have the same results and similar capabilities with similar procedures. Differences between different tanks could vary in how far you can lase accurately and how accurate the hits can be. Those would all be just simple properties in the one unique fire control component and would not need any significant work for each specific tank once the system itself is made.

[EricM 0]

I think we can all agree that ArmA's strongpoint is its realism.

I beg to differ. I believe Arma's real strongpoint is FREEDOM, realism is just an extra for Arma (and somtime it's worst ennemy).

By it's wealth of different equipments and content, it's open environment, it's editor, it's hybrid RTS/FPS gameplay, it's scripting and modding ability, it's MP and SP abilities, it's air/land/sea combination etc... ARMA has a set of unique features that no other game can match.

As far as "realism" is concerned, Arma isn't bad at all, and that's great, but you could name many games that have superior features (including some supposedly arcade shooters).

Just look at the "first thing you do when you get arma" thread : almost nobody talks about realism, but rather "I'll go boar hunting", "I'm going to make a bike tour" or "toast some cows with the Hind" etc...

Realism could also become Arma's worst ennemy on a business level : at first it's a good thing, but past some point, the painstaking recreation of every rivets and systems on every model is much more demanding that the fictitious creation of, say, an nuclear powered antigrav hover-tank. And even though you work hard on documentation, someone will always bitch about the flaws/shortcuts or missing features.

Eventually, the level of complexity overcome the gameplay and immersion benefits for most people and you start losing players, DESPITE working much harder than the rest of the competition just making up things a la Crysis.

Off course it's better to have realist things for immersion, but when it borders "gun porn" it's too much. As far as I'm concerned it could be Star Wars or whatever (Carrier Command ?), I think it would be just as funny most of the time if the story and designs are good.

[SGT_2AD 10]

IMHO....

it is a difference between realism, and authenticity.

I think the level of realism in any video game is quite low. The level of authenticity can be quite high. Reproducing graphically, vehicles and weapons to such a high standard gives a game the level of authenticity. Simulating correct reloading procedures is another example.

It is very difficult to recreate realism in a video game, due to the fact you can't get that physical reproduction that you get in a real situation. So to say that a video game is realistic, is not right, due to the lack of physical attributes you can not attain. ArmA II is really nothing more than a video game, and not a simulator in the true sense. Simulators recreate the physical environment in which you operate, like an aircraft simulator or a tank simulator.

I never get the feeling of realism in any game due to the fact I know physically what it feels like to execute those actions. I never once pressed the "R" key to reload my M16, for example. Humping a hill with rucksack on your back can not be simulated in any fashion.

At the end of the day, it is still just a video game. Authentic attention to details, no doubt, adds to the playing of the game. But does not create a sense of realism. To attain that level, we would need a holodeck from startrek.

IMHO....

[An-225 0]

"ArmA's real strongpoint is FREEDOM"

There is an interesting point to think about. If anything though, I would argue that it has two strongpoints - freedom and realism.

I've never really liked the ACE mod (without trying it). Its kind of hard to explain...they have added subjective features, such as stamina when loaded with an MG or AT weapon, which really is variable on an individual basis.

It is a little hard to know what constitutes "gun porn" or not. I don't think any civilian would truly want realistic vehicle procedures in a non-dedicated-subject game like this. But the capabilities of certain vehicles should not be undermined, as with FLIR or an FCS.

[sparks50 0]

I think Arma could get a LOT more realistic and authentic, without really scaring away any casual players at all. Its just a excuse so they wont have to prioritize things like the Javelin, other auto lock weapons, vehicle FCS etc on a tight schedule.

Edited April 23, 2009 by sparks50

[Provac 0]

IMHO....

it is a difference between realism, and authenticity.

I think the level of realism in any video game is quite low. The level of authenticity can be quite high. Reproducing graphically, vehicles and weapons to such a high standard gives a game the level of authenticity. Simulating correct reloading procedures is another example.

It is very difficult to recreate realism in a video game, due to the fact you can't get that physical reproduction that you get in a real situation. So to say that a video game is realistic, is not right, due to the lack of physical attributes you can not attain. ArmA II is really nothing more than a video game, and not a simulator in the true sense. Simulators recreate the physical environment in which you operate, like an aircraft simulator or a tank simulator.

I never get the feeling of realism in any game due to the fact I know physically what it feels like to execute those actions. I never once pressed the "R" key to reload my M16, for example. Humping a hill with rucksack on your back can not be simulated in any fashion.

At the end of the day, it is still just a video game. Authentic attention to details, no doubt, adds to the playing of the game. But does not create a sense of realism. To attain that level, we would need a holodeck from startrek.

IMHO....

Never thought about it like that before but I have to say you opened my eyes and are absolutely right. I think to most realism is slower game play, the longer things take the more realistic it seems. Since arcade shooters base themselves on speed by cutting unnecessary animation and actions they seem less believable in a realistic setting. Its basically comparing 2 action movies, one with dual wielding maniac never having to reload his gun and a war movie based on true events. In the end you can place that tag on both and say none of them are realistic, but one of them are more authentically accurate than the other. I guess for true realism you really have to be there yourself or start watching movies that lasts as long as the actual event :D

But you clearly point out the fact that no game is realistic, some are just more believable than others in terms of realism. Great post il keep it with me when looking at realism vs authenticity, cant really argue with that.

[Commando84 0]

I like features alot like draging woundead, ballistic penetration through wood and similar stuff, I like realistic looking vehicles but im no nitpick if a gascanister is on the left side insttead of the right side.

I really love Ofp/Arma's mix of sim and easy accessability like how easy it is to drive a tank or fly a chopper, even though i remember swearing alot when trying to learnt to fly choppers and planes the first time. Ofp/Arma's strong point is freedom really, for me realism has always come second, realism for has been the insta gibb factor or that you can drop troops from a chopper and then watch the chopper get shoot down by some machinegunner in the nearby village you are assaulting. Then when returning to base you can grab a civilian vehicle or left over opfor vehicle and drive back.

Things that would add for me is like give civilian side aircrafts and variety so they can be used in all kinds of scenarios.

Arma is a sandbox game and as such should give as much scenario possibilities as possible :) i.e a good selection of vehicles and equipment and other stuff in the editor will really help me and others i believe.

Some things that are extra but I know needs more hard work from coders is walking inside ontop of moving vehicles like bigger ships or inside a c-130 for an example walking inside a train that is moving :)

I dunno know how it is to operate a tank or reload a m16 but hearing the sounds and seing some of the animations and feeling the game engine struggle against me when i try to do crazy near ground strafing runs with my cobra is awesome :)

one of my favourite things in ofp/arma is the tab fire air to ground missiles :D

really a favoureite thing, its a bit imbalanced maybe but it sure is a hell lot more fun than Bf 2's dive bomber attacks than risc ending up crashin into the ground.

But I would understand if Bis removed it due to 80% of all players complaining about it.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Commando84

[Kirby 2]

Im my opinion, everything should be as realistic as possible. Not to an overly stupid point of cleaning your rifles and sosuch.

BUT... That's wha mod's are for. The Stock game should be playable for most people (More realistic than most games, I'm sure, but still). And people like me who want hyper realism can use a realism mod such as ACE.

Heck, back on flashpoint with WGL, I ran a mission that lasted for a day or two solid, with us carrying our gear in the packs, hiking and chatting a long long way, using every realistic feature of WGL we could in and out of combat. Everyone set up a camp, slept, and continued the next morning.

Most players will want just the "combat simulation" part, if you see what I mean, without it being tedious. I like realism sometimes and fun others. But mostly realism when paying with HC.

[celery 8]

I don't care that much about how things are done as long as the outcome is close to real. Basically that means simplifying some tasks such as operating vehicles and equipment but not to the point that you can achieve superhuman things. Making seemingly simple tasks tedious to achieve makes what should be quality time feel like busywork and since even now only a fraction of the players can for example fly properly, making it more difficult in the name of total realism vs. intended result will pretty much deter most people from missions where it's mandatory.

[lt.chris 0]

This topic is very touchy becuase everyone has their own "line" they will go upto before they say the game has too much realism and is harming the gameplay and its not fun etc. Its understandable from BIS's view however becuase as much as they may would like to get to realsm the game has to sell at the end of the day which is why they are not going for the most extreme realism possible

My personal opinion is id love to see BIS to go to the most extreme realism possible such as having to go though rediculusly long sequences to get a chopper/plane started or go though the sequences to assemble a rifle like a m16

Although it doesnt annoy/disapoint me becuase I know the game has to sell. Theres always the mods which can increace the realism of us realism junkies anyway :)

[SGT_2AD 10]

This topic is very touchy becuase everyone has their own "line" they will go upto before they say the game has too much realism and is harming the gameplay and its not fun etc. Its understandable from BIS's view however becuase as much as they may would like to get to realsm the game has to sell at the end of the day which is why they are not going for the most extreme realism possible

My personal opinion is id love to see BIS to go to the most extreme realism possible such as having to go though rediculusly long sequences to get a chopper/plane started or go though the sequences to assemble a rifle like a m16

Although it doesnt annoy/disapoint me becuase I know the game has to sell. Theres always the mods which can increace the realism of us realism junkies anyway :)

Exactly. It's good to have discussions, along as everyone understands, its each individuals opinion about it. Everyone has their own level of realism that they feel. Mine is low, for example. Someone else's may be high. Recreating the environment is tough no matter who your are, as a developer.

Thinking about this subject, there is one game that I've played that probably recreated realism higher than others. Rock Band. I know it sounds funny, but physically holding the mic in your hands trying to match tone and pitch, gave you the sensation of being a singer. I think, it's those physical attributes that recreate "realism" to a much higher degree. Many factors like age may play into it. I am older, therefore have experienced more things of the physical world, and sense a lack of realism in video games.

Good subject AN-225.

[privatenoob 0]

My personal opinion is id love to see BIS to go to the most extreme realism possible such as having to go though rediculusly long sequences to get a chopper/plane started or go though the sequences to assemble a rifle like a m16

Which already exists in "real" flightsims which BIS has a long way to go if they wanna be compared to those. Its not ARMA one should play for realistic flying or driving vechicle(Tanks), the maps are to small too anyway.

Check out Falcon:4 or Steel Beasts instead and be happy for the rest.

I long for the day terrain in a game is realistic and not just graphicly authentic. Snow, swamps, etc. Right now you just run on the ground on any terrain like usual. Maybe in 10 years forward we can see any progress on that, hopefully.

Personally I would go for uber-realism in any game, digging latrines, making campfire, advanced animations and sequences to do things like jumping up in a truck and waiting line, loading weapon, etc.

There are alot of other games I can choose from when I get tired of this but there are not many realistic games to choose from at start.

[Electricleash 133]

I would absolutely agree on the 'Freedom' over 'Realism'.

The task that Bohemia have set for themselves is a momentous and daring one. They have sort of shot themselves in the foot in doing so, but frankly I am very thankful for the flesh wound!

They have essentially created this huge 'toy box' and filled it with toys that would please the broadest spectrum of players.

However by calling it 'The Ultimate Military Simulation' or using the marketed words 'realism' or 'realistic', they have conjured up the wrong attitudes and approach to the game amongst a certain portion of the player community.

Those interested in the game because of this allusion to realism are coming at it now with many different and higher expectations:

Vehicle/Tank/Aircraft geeks - with knowledge of all the different systems/versions/old or new/never put into production/never put into service/loadouts etc...

Gun geeks - knowledge of every firearm ever in service or not, by any army...

and not forgetting now that there is wildlife, the Hunting Geeks.

General military geeks - Which can be broken down into who knows how many countries and their regiments/division etc...

In many cases the only way those in these categories (I use geek not in a derogatory term btw, as I certainly fit into some of these) can really tune in with the game is if every detail is correct.

It's like in a film when you suddenly spot a mistake or continuity error, and your like woh! hang on! what was that? Your momentarilly pulled out of the moment. For those so into their chosen love I can imagine (or rather know) it's a crushing moment killer...

...but just imagine the task, of trying to make sure every one of those people is happy. With their probable far superior micro knowledge on every aspect of one particular vehicle, or military regimental organisation, the task is just too huge!

I think when it comes to realism, the 'content', (that being the exact specs, historical accuracy and absolute correct procedures for use) should not take priority over gameplay mechanics and the over-arcing, homgenized balance and feel of the game.

If you start catering too much to those with speciallist interests, then you stumble into difficult territory.

Consider my case; I know nothing about the inner workings of tanks... probably because I'm a little claustrophobic and don't like the feeling of being a sitting duck regardless of how much armour is sitting between me and an RPG... and in game, I also found them to be lacking somewhat in enjoyability in terms of gameplay... even so, What I love is the FREEDOM to be able to jump into one on a whim and drive it without having to read oudles of manuals before I start the ignition sequence.

Finally, going back to my 'Toy Box' analogy, not only have we been supplied with premade 'toys' but there is an extra box of 'Lego' to go with. So if your not happy with the premade, then you have all the FREEDOM in the computing world to go nuts and make it the way you want it.

Apologies for the particularly long post.

[vektorboson 8]

Well, what we really want is some sort of 'realistic' balancing. Right now an attack helicopter is TAB-Shoot-kill-TAB-shoot-kill, which is very badly balanced, even considering an arcade shooter. Most arcade shooters balance this asymmetry by giving those vehicles less armor (kill a tank with few 7.62mm).

But making target acquisition and fire controls more authentic would even the field out.

I agree with Kegetys on creating a generic, but authentic, simulation of those systems, and modeling their strengths/weaknesses through different parameters.

It's pretty acceptable that nobody has the time to learn all unique systems (besides BIS having to implement them...)

[PhilippRauch 0]

BTW: I totally like the points about 'authenticity', 'realism' and 'freedom' as mentioned above :ok:

I love ArmA (and did so with OFP) for its freedom... we can do WHATEVER we want, be it supernerdy 'realism' or arcadekiddy 'EGOshooter' or even something outright stupid... its up to the phantasy of the addon/missionmaker!

Anyone remember the LegoWars mod for OFP?? ... just an example... total nerdyness but supercool... hell i am thinking of making a vibrating gatlinggun shooting pink dildos ... (pronMod anyone :D)

Another guy did some visualization of mathematical stuff with OFP ...

I also love celerys micro Deathmatch (or is it even Nano?) with random weapons each spawn WITH grenadelauncher enabled ... whooot! superdupercool...

ah, i just LOVE this 'game'....

[mr.g-c 6]

This is a very interesting Topic....

Realism should go so far that its still playable bu doesn't require you to view to original handbook for each vehicle and needed to press each button like in RL...

So something like Blackshark goes way to far for my Personal taste (a friend showed me alone the startup part and that he learned that in one week of handbook reading+trial and error - lol).

However between uber-realism and what we have in Arma (or in each other commercial BIS games so far) is a very very very large gap, where you can find for each part of the game very good "middle-ways/compromises" - and i think that it would be rather clever for BIS to approach a bit more to "functional realism".

For instance, todays must have (no matter how simple!) for a game gets called "Simulation" are:

- Tank FCS a simple made Tank-FCS (perfectly described by Kegetys here) hurts no-one ingame... it is a very good example for realism and much easier playability after you added such a system.

- Thermal Optics/ FLIR:

Just let the whole model glow, no-one demans a perfect system like in VBS2, but to have NONE at all is very very bad, even more given the fact that very large amount of games had such functions since 1997.

- Removal of "Radar" from Tanks, its not realistic and adds nothing to gameplay

- Removal of Auto-lock from Tanks, its not needed when you have a simple Tank-FCS anyway

- Realistic Loadouts of all Vehicles Weapons (means especially ATGMs in Russian Tanks, correct amount of MG-Ammo, etc.)

- Authentic (simple) simulation of weapon-systems:

- Single Shot disposable Launchers like in RL (AT, RPG22, RPGxx, etc.)

- Javelin should have FLIR and at least a lock-on phase and should have both attack-modes to choose from.

- TOW should be steerable,

- Russian ATGM counterparts should be used like in RL, by pointing your cursor on the enemy and press a "lase" key and the missle flies along the laser path. Same goes when you fly a helicopter and have such laser guided or laser-beam-riding weapons.

- Air-to air Missles like Sidewinder should have a short lock-on phase where you must either point your nose to the enemy plane and follow it a few seconds or follow it with your virtual helmet (use freelook)

- Sniper Rifles should have sight-adjustments (like in ACE)

- Machine-Guns (Light, Medium and heavy) should have sight-adjustments (like in ACE)

- Good made Penetrations of Material, Vehicles and Bodies

And countless more...

- Also you should have other practical realism features like packing a backpack, which allows you to carry more stuff (should be limited by size)

- A simple stamina system, by limiting the ability to run infinite.

But i also think the AI should have something like human failures so that they simply wont hit on the first shot like in Arma1.

Having some Tank Battles in Arma1 is quite extreme, as the AI hits you with their T72 even on 1.5km distance on the first shot even when you move with full-speed, while you on the other hand without a FCS, needs like 5 shots to hit them :p

For me that is realism too!

Genreally i fully agree to these statements:

I think Arma could get a LOT more realistic and authentic, without really scaring away any casual players at all. Its just a excuse so they wont have to prioritize things like the Javelin, other auto lock weapons, vehicle FCS etc on a tight schedule.

Absolutely, we can see it with the gigantic success of ACE-Mod...After playing it since interal Alpha versions i can say that nothing adds more to Teamplay than such Realism-Features...

And:

I beg to differ. I believe Arma's real strongpoint is FREEDOM[...]

Yes indeed Armas and all BIS Products strong points are the Open World, huge environments and modability, which lets you create basically every kind of Game/Mission you like to do with this Sandbox.

The Problem i have with BIS is the claim to be ultra-realistic while their games are rather on the level of very poor Arcade-shooters with realism (realism is here meant techical-function wise by me).

Really i imagine to not know the product(s) and see it advertised as "The Ultimate Military Simulator" and in descriptions of Online-Stores, described with "More realism is nowhere else available" is simply bad, as it is simply a lie.

The Second Problem is that its not very good possible to implement stuff like FLIR, Tank FCS, without gigantic efforts and workarounds which takes even the motivatest people, some years to realize them (when no simple engine possibilities in form of config/scriopting possibilities are available).

Example is that we still have no good FLIR in Arma1 by no Mod-Team.

So when they this time give really all functionality by scripting-comands/model-changes/Config-changes to later implement all those realism parts, then it would be good.

[echo1 0]

Replace that M24 with the M40A3 and I'll be happy.

[PhilippRauch 0]

Replace that M24 with the M40A3 and I'll be happy.

no, keep both ;), but from realism/authenticy it must really rather be the M40, since the Razor team is USMC ...

[Electricleash 133]

Umm... Maybe keep away from specifics? as I think this thread is more about 'Realism' as a concept... else I fear it will likely degenerate into a knowledge slinging match?

[Baff1 0]

Well I'm specificly up for more authenticity in the tank department?

Or is that realism?

I want to see Soviet style tanks with ATGMs and hopefully fire control and directional armour.

I think the first key to it is that it must be fun and intuative to play.

Like posters above me, Blackshark bores me.

Awesome concept but no fun.

So I am looking for fidelity in purpose, but not necessarily fidelity in controls and systems.

So a tank that in real life can engage and destroy targets at 5km range, can do so in the game also.

It doesn't have to drive like a real tank or lock it's missile on like a real tank, but I am looking for enough realism to make a good battlefield simulation.

Not a flight sim, not an infantry sim, not a tank sim, a battlefield sim.

And this is why to me, OpF/ArmA are better simulators than Blackshark.

I like flying helicopters, but it is the role of the helicopter on the battlefield I am attempting to simulate, not the flight controls and handling.

I'm not trying to get my pilots lisence, I'm trying to recreate battles or invent my own.

So I don't want anything so authentic I need to spend months learning to interact with it.

The realism I'm looking for is the same as a previous poster has mentioned. The capability of the units in the modelled enviroment.

Once that realism has been achieved I am then looking for the simplest interface so that I can operate them within that enviroment and best recreate their real life effectiveness (from my comfortable nerdchair).

I certainly enjoy authenticity. Buttons in the right place. Vehicle interiors accurately showing me things I've never seen.

But er I do believe in artistic lisence. Even if I spot an error, it won't kill my enjoyment.

Although vice versa any little accurate details I do notice will improve my enjoyment.

The last area of realism I would like to approach is the realism of theme. The plot, the scenario, the story line.

As a poster above I don't mind if the game is a Star Wars themed game or Cold War or a Caucases War theme. As long as it is true to whatever theme it picks.

I don't want to be sent up as a special forces guy against 100's of men in a gunfight a la COD.

I do want to go on patrols against insurgent forces and watch out for IED's and ambushes.

I do want to man checkpoints and join the thrusts of armoured spearheads in a combined arms assault etc etc etc.

To go Scud hunting behind enemy lines or raid an airstrip in light vehicles as a special force.

To be authentic, it must be a historical. Actual battles that have happened. And that is by far my most prefered scenario. Historicals.

But realism can still be maintained if the hypothetical is good, or if the concept is close enough to equate a real battle.

Something believeable.

Russians vs Americans, not believeable. Or at least this game doesn't model nukes very well and it wouldn't be fun on a map that fits into one single blast crater.

Russians vs seperatist army or small national army, very believeable.

Americans vs seperatists or small national army, very believeable.

I'd love to see rip off's of actual events in the Georgia War modelled into this game for example. Actual missions, actual enagements remodelled under artistic lisence.

Fiction that attempts to mirror fact.

Or Ukrainian wargame scenarios, transposed and modelled into Neo Ukrainia. Something with an underlying element of truth. Half fictions.

If not, then Star Wars please. Total fiction is good also.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Baff1

[lt.chris 0]

Which already exists in "real" flightsims which BIS has a long way to go if they wanna be compared to those. Its not ARMA one should play for realistic flying or driving vechicle(Tanks), the maps are to small too anyway.

Check out Falcon:4 or Steel Beasts instead and be happy for the rest.

I think uve missed the point of what i was tring to say, Im fully aware of the other games which are dedicated to flight sims. What I mean is im not too bothered how its setup and im totally aware of how its going to be, Its just simply what I think what would be great for ArmA2 (in my own view)

[Barely-injured 0]

Absolutely agree about FREEDOM being the strongest point of the series. we have Freedom of approach, Freedom of mission making, Freedom of modding, and Freedom to do some weird weird stuff with that engine (Zombie mods, alien mods....etc).

When it comes to realism, I am one of those people who like as much of it as it can gets. I would like to be able to clean my rifle, I would like to be able to press all the buttons inside a tank, and I would love to read 352 pages of the Manual before thinking about flying in the Su-34. For me these things might serve to enhance the freedom of the game rather than diminish it.

.................BUT....................

In the end of the day this is still BIS's game and it is still a game that they have to sell to the mass market and it still maintains its strongest trademark features of freedom. I really, really don't understand how a lot of people in our community continuously keep saying that the inclusion of the feature XYZ in the weapon of ABC is a "MUST" if the game is to be successful or if the game is to be called "The ultimate military simulation". I certainly would appreciate the inclusion of those features, but in no way do I see the lack of these things as a "game breaker". It is not that these things should not be mentioned but mentioning them again and again every 5 pages of the "Latest ArmA II press coverage thread" with every new screen shot or video you get loads of "OMG this is so not realistic" comments. I am sure that BIS is aware of most if not all of these demands and it is up to them if they include it or not and the various technical issues that might arise from that. I mean seriously for a lot of people who claim that they support realism in this community they sure seem to lack any realistic conception of the big picture here. :mad:

I apologize for the Rant.

I guess it would be nice to have a sort of chart similar to the bug tracker thing so that people can list all of there features and maybe BIS response for them so that people stop whining over the same things over and over again.

I love ArmA II just the way it is.

[Hell_Toupee 0]

Whats needed is basic weapon system simulation of vehicles tank/aircraft/atgm etc the tab lock fire crap is both unrealistic and massively unbalanced, simulating weapons systems even at a basic level would sort this. Play a flight sim like lock on,blackshark, the weapon systems are not actually that complex to operate, its also similar function to what Russian ground vehicles use like bmp3.