Flogger23m

... or BI can actually make improvements on some very seriously antiqued areas of the game rather than release a heap of garbage content and a graphics update. They're becoming like the CoD developers - releasing the same game with new weapons/units. They also went the future route to. Give me a good old M4 or FAL, and make both sets of animations for it. Complete the damn thing before jumping to futuristic content, which not surprisingly, also lacks both sets of animations. How about a 3D editor which swaps to 2D mode like Jane's USAF did in 1999? An AI command menu that isn't a clusterfuck? Improvements are what I want. Not more futuristic content that is more or less of low, garbage quality.

Please let us know how to go about this if possible. :)

While I respect your opinion and concerns, I always find the ArmA community/fan base's concerns laughable. We can get huge threads amassed about the gender of our targets, yet everyone seems to be content with the worlds most cumbersome and antiquated command system known in video game history. The AI is still dumb as a sack of rocks with severe difficultly following you. Female or male character 3D model, does it make a difference if the damn hostages can't be rescued and extracted without getting lost 15 times over 1 kilometer while running in a straight line? Fix the AI, make hostage AI workable, and fix the garbage editor UI. When aspects that actually matter and define the gameplay are ironed out, then we can worry about the gender, race, or skin color of the characters. Sadly, I don't think we'll ever see such improvements in this series/from this developer.

Yes, lets be patient. Its not like we paid for the game already, and certainly none of us bought the game months before release. BI should start building/selling cars. That way they can ship the rear doors 4 months after you bought the car and the steering wheel 1 year later. In the mean time, we can hope the aftermarket makes components that work!

Another zombie mod. With hunger, thirst, and infections. So what is different from Day Z and other zombie games again? Good luck, but it doesn't seem to be doing anything unique.

That is part of the problem with ArmA. Getting good missions is a pain as just about every mission requires a new mod or per-requesite; often times they don't tell you in the README and assume you figure it out. And not surprisingly, these mission-mods conflict with each other so your install will become unstable and not work well. To top it off, most of the missions you can find are honestly garbage. The editor is powerful but spending an hour setting loadouts or other menial tasks with the anarchic editor style is also a pain. MP... add in the typical issues that arise from MP (finding people, finding time, a server, ect.) and the extra performance hit ArmA takes online and add it with all the things I previously mentioned. That is your co-op experience. If you want to play PvP and reinforcement/building style stuff then you're wasting the potential of the game and may as well play BF3. The key is improving the editor, which has essentially been neglected since ArmA 1. Likewise, AI commands and overall AI competency needs a huge facelift to play said missions properly without the AI screwing things up, two other areas that have so far been neglected. With just weeks left until release in ArmA 3 I don't see that changing. I am not holding my breathe post release either. But, we did get the worlds worst water interaction in video game history and underwater scuba diving combat.

Doors are openable if that is what you were asking. How the friendly AI works with it is unknown. Months back talk of "crack and frag" was thrown around, so lets hope that is in the final game. A UDK screen shot of the map "facility": http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7284/9625225450_f06133af6a_b.jpg

After playing the alpha the core gameplay left me with a Raven Shield feeling which I consider to be a good thing. How the final game ends up is still up for debate, but I am hoping for the best. As an SP player, the quality of the AI and command system will really be what makes or breaks the game for me. I hope today or tomorrow we will get more insight into how the SP, planning and AI/command system is. I also really dislike the scope system (old ArmA 1/2 style) which is enough to make me not want to use scopes in Takedown just like I avoided them in ArmA 1/2. I really wanted RO2 style scopes, but would have been fine with ArmA 3/GRAW style scopes. I will be using Eotechs/iron sights exclusively unless I absolutely need a scope. :p Here is another video I found on different forum: http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/l6nmnx/takedown--red-sabre-facility-map-first-look Far better than the trailer. They need a video showing how the planning phase looks as that is a central feature of the genre. From what I understand it will be more like SWAT, with a 3D map (sort of like Raven Shield) but with no waypoint placing for AI.

The previous title, after many patches, was a solid title at its core. Not a superb game, lacked content and still had some bugs and issues. But it was rather tactical as far as PvP MP shooters go. This, however, looks terrible. Looks like CoD hardcore without respawns.

There is an SP with AI. How advanced the AI is is unknown at this point. They are doing a final Q/A video for Kickstarters - I asked a lot of questions about the AI, squad commands and SP. Hopefully they get answered. I am an SP player and I to want a strong SP. The trailer was rather horrible IMO. It looked more like a trailer for an over the top action game. Gameplay from the Alpha was more along the lines of Raven Shield so it should still have that feel. I fear that too many things may not have received the depth I had hoped for. Going from the beta I find ArmA 3 to be a let down and I sincerely hope Takedown doesn't follow suit. Guess I will know soon enough.

Hello all, I've recently found out that the release date of ArmA 3 is nearing very quickly. I am wondering if what we see in the current beta version is essentially what the retail game will be? Obviously the retail version will ship with some extra content, but as far as significant improvements to the editor, command menu and other features go, is there anything else in the pipeline?

Essentially what I was asking. Thanks for the reply. A bit too many changes/features I wanted did not seem to make it I guess. :(

Takedown: Red Sabre is up for pre-order on Steam. Price is $15. After playing the Alpha I can best describe the gameplay as being similar to Raven Shield. Its worth looking into if you like small scale tactical shooters.

It depends on the game. In a flight sim a proper cockpit is required. In an infantry simulator or tactical shooter first person is required as are all of the appropriate animations.

That is out dated information. They increased the price by $10 when they advertised they were going to add additional new upgrades to FC3 such as: - New cockpits for the Su-25, A-10A and Su-27 - New radar mode for the MIG-29S - Advanced flight model for the A-10A - Various other fixes for those aircraft - Inclusion of an advanced 3D model for the F-15C and Su-27 Things like the expanded theater and improved graphics are moot as you get those free with DCS World or already paid for them when you bought other DCS modules. Essentially, FC3 users are not getting anything we were not already guaranteed and had already paid for. It would simply have been a very poor and distasteful business decision for us to buy FC3 and then charge us again to get the same aircraft as standalone. The $40 (pre-order price) or $50 price we paid was not for the F-15C, it was for the F-15C, A-10A, MIG-29A/G/S, Su-25, Su-27 and Su-33. My question is what happens with the MIG-29s and Su-33? Part of the reason we bought FC3 was so we could play those aircraft. For many such as myself it will be our 5th time we are paying to continue playing these if they do indeed charge us $20 for the MIG-29 and Su-33. And I would hope if they do decide to charge us for the MIG-29, they will include the A/G/S at $20 and not charge us $20 for each variant.

Hello, As I only have the Alpha Lite I am unable to compare the Alpha and Beta versions of the game. I am still on the fence about pre-ordering ArmA 3. If someone can answer these questions about the beta I would appreciate it: - Are there any changes to the AI command menu (infantry) from the alpha? - Are there any changes to the mission editor, such as a GUI (graphical user interface) for unit loadouts? - Has grenade throwing been improved? - Is there a GUI for mission pass/fail conditions in the editor? - Has AI path finding been significantly improved? In the alpha the AI had great difficultly following me. - Can we order the AI to throw grenades? Any other notable changes introduced in the beta aside from scopes? Thanks for your time.

Indeed, the 1911 in game does look like a single stack and it does say .45 on the in game weapon apparently. Double stack 1911s are sold to civilians in both 9mm and .45. They will either have to modify the current 1911 in game to be a single stack .45, modify the 3D model/texture and make it a single stack 9x19mm, or just do the cheap way out and make it a double stack version with a sing stack grip. What they end up doing by the final game is anyone's guess. I've spent about 7 hours in the alpha, and I've tried getting into it. But I can't. The same short comings but I am stuck with content I don't care about. My only hope is an ACE like mod comes out for ArmA 3 so I don't have to install 50 weapon and vehicle pack mods with all of their compatibility issues. The game is marketed as a simulator, and as such I expect simulator quality in the details. If I wanted to play a sandbox game I'd get Fallout and if I wanted to play a generic shooter I'd get Battlefield.

Thanks for the replies everyone. I'll give it a second thought tonight. Edit: Against my better judgement I bought the game. I am regretting it already. Modders in this community can't make a readme worth a damn as their instructions are wrong 50% of the time. What a pain in the ass making this game playable.

It is worth noting the BIS has always missed the finer details on things, at least since the ArmA 1 days. Belt feds would reload just as quick as mag fed rifles. Refinement and finishing a feature never was their strong point. With ArmA 3 they jumped into a future setting, so they can more or less make whatever fictional weapon/vehicle they want and balance it how they see fit. 9mm 1911s do exist, and a few countries actually do use (or used) them in 9x19mm. Why anyone in the future would choose a 9x19mm 1911 is beyond me though. There are plenty of newer designs with a much higher capacity, such as the P226 with 18 round mags or CZ-75s with 19 round mags. This is one of the reasons why the $33 price tag is just too steep for me.

Came here to post a thread about the sale. I would get UH-1 but I am too short on money at the moment. :p There is some good and some bad (or unclear). The good is that for those 4 aircraft, an install of the original LOMAC is no longer required. Everyone who owns FC3 gets them. The bad is the MIG-29A/G/S and Su-33 are up in the air at this point. Will they get updated up to the F-15C/A-10A standard? If they do will FC3 users be forced to buy them at $20 a piece? I do fly both the MIG-29S and Su-33 frequently so I would like to see them updated, but I do not feel like paying for them a 5th time. Especially since that is why I bought the FC3 during the beta period - to get them updated and integrated into World.

Their problem is that they are having difficulty finding the balance between realism and arcade. And they seem to shove arcade down our throats. Had they kept one realism level (like RO1) the game would have sold much better. And probably been less buggy. The game is certainly better but still suffers from some odd issues, such as horrid LOD changing, odd aiming and movement mechanics which are more clunky that RO1, some randomized stats and unlocks, and more. I will just wait for Festung Europa and or Traction Wars.

Nothing much has changed gameplay wise from ArmA 2 to 3. ArmA 3 does bring aboard some improvements and fixes from a realism perspective (ex), belt feds take longer to reload than a rifle, scopes with peripheral vision, less unnatural stalls between movements and vehicles that don't slide across the ground). But the core gameplay, its pluses and minuses is still intact. There is nothing more mainstream about ArmA 3 compared to 2, aside from the horrid fictional weapons and vehicles. What ArmA 3 needs is better and more seamless mod integration so we are not running countless mods attempting to bring authentic weapons and gear into the game.

Too little too late. They're still tweaking basic gameplay mechanics nearly two years after release. Post release updates are welcome, but you would think they would be content or upgrade oriented. Not trying to fix the game nearly two years later. IMO they should just call it quits, admit they did a poor job, and make an RO3. And either make it similar to the first game or just make a proper CoD clone. I have a feeling they are better suited for zombie game type stuff these days though.

TA31F-RMR http://www.trijicon.com/images/product_masters/TA31F-RMR.jpg http://www.trijicon.com/images/product_reticles/TA31F-RMR_reticle_popup.jpg ELCAN SpecterDR ITL MARS - Not a scope, but it combined both a visible and non-visible laser into it which would be unique as it was never done in game before. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Flickr_-_Israel_Defense_Forces_-_Nachal_Brigade_Reconnaissance_Battalion_in_%22Commando%22_Training_%282%29.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/INDIA5.jpg Aimpoint/Eotech magnifiers http://www.laruetactical.com/sites/default/files/lt-602_chart_thumbnail.jpg

Sorry if this has been covered but I can not seem to find a specific answer. What is the last day to order the ArmA 3 Alpha at the $33 price? The FAQ says until the beta is released in Q2 but does not give a specific date when the price will jump up.