Madus_Maximus

More Baysplosions!

That made me lol my pants. It always cracked me up when friends would go on about how "massive" the maps were in BF3 having played OFP and ArmA games for so long lol.

This is why I specifically said: "combatants" and "logistical". It's extremely rare to see women actually fighting in any professional military force. A lot of it is to do with psychology and differences in physical strength. As un-PC as it may sound, women are generally less physically strong than men are, it's just the way humans have evolved. It's a similar case in many species in this planet. The male is generally the more aggressive and physically strong gender. The psychological side of things plays a role too. Men are more likely to come to the aid of a fallen female than a fallen male, it's how our brains are wired. Even if the bloke is in a much more serious condition. It's also more emotionally distressing to see females injured or killed (there's been a few studies done over the years by various militaries around the world which is why it's still rare to see women in a combat role). They could, maybe should add women too, but given the focus is on combat in the vast majority of scenarios that will be created it stands to reason that most or all combatants will be male. I'm sure mods will show up to change things if people want it, but I'm not convinced it's something BIS should really spend too much time on at this stage.

There's a long running debate as to wether they used the concept of the Charger in L4D that a member of the community described in detail before Valve ever showed off such a monster, though it's far more common than you think for developers to have the same or similar ideas that people in the community have which then appear to be "stolen". That wasn't something anybody ever actually made though, it was just explained in detail and was never implemented into the game as far as I'm aware. Either way, they wouldn't do such a thing if the content is created for someone else's game. For starters the people who's game it's a mod for would likely sue them anyway considering the fact there are VERY similar clauses written into mod tools for pretty much everything stating they own the content if you use their tools to import it into the game, just like BIS' tools have. As usual with the internet, it's much ado about nothing.

Real military stuff is actually MORE advanced in some cases than we see in ArmA 3. People whine all the time about the whole tab targeting thing for example, yet even that is somewhat redundant compared to the FCS in things like the Apache that does it all for you. You just point your head at it and hit fire and it prioritises things for you. This is hardly new either. It may be new on the infantry level, but these kind of visor huds are decades old in aircraft, so it stands to reason we'll see them at some point for infantry. There were programmes like Landwarrior that did exactly this. I'm glad to finally have a more capable main OPFOR again too. It becomes boring shooting at brown people with weapons older than your grandparents with the most sophisticated thing they have to use is a pager connected to some explosives they stole that sets them off when you phone it. We have MODS for anything else. It's a sandbox game remember, it's down to how you make the missions, you have the option to use these things or not, so why should they not bother simply because you don't like them in situation X when you don't have to use them? Also have others have said here and in other threads, a lot of this stuff EXISTS already, either in current use or in actual working prototype stages. It's also based on trends. A higher calibre round has been desired for years with NATO forces, 5.56 was designed for an era of warfare that never really happened (much like the majority of gear currently in use). Things like the Abrams were designed for head to head armour charges which is why they have rather mediocre protection on the back and sides compared to newer tanks like the Challengers and Leopard 2's for example. If you don't like it, don't use them. Wait for the mods, or import old content which people have already done with very little work.

Isn't there a similar clause in the BI tools like O2? Anything you import using their tools is technically the property of BIS at that point.

Female combatants are extremely rare in the vast majority of military forces. They were extremely rare even during times of world conflict as in WW2 when it was a case of "we need every man we can get". Women support the war effort in a more logistical way than actually fighting. There are many reasons to NOT have female soldiers in active combat roles. I can only think of ONE country off the top of my head that has female combatants, and that's Israel. Even there it's not all that common to have them actually fight, it's still predominantly men. If you want women, there's mods for that. It really isn't statistically common enough for them to add them in any big way, even given the storyline of the shit hitting the fan.

This is also a thing. http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4047/5120559822_f92e94c3e9_z.jpg Just think what most of us carry around in our pocket every day. Why wouldn't the military also have such things? Hint: they do.

Sorry to be an ass about it, but people around here don't seem to be aware of what an alpha release is. From Wikipedia of course. Where else? lol

Does nobody here remember the Land Warrior project? http://www.army-technology.com/projects/land_warrior/images/landwarrior_2.jpg They've implemented a bunch of that stuff into current issue. Of course it's done differently, but most of the concepts are there. Things like cameras, GPS, electronic maps and VOIP type encrypted comms are fairly standard now. To those complaining about things like the weight and bulk of things too, just remember that stuff we have now in the consumer space would have been deemed impossible just 5 years ago. Look at modern tablets and how much computing power and battery life they can fit into such a small, thin and light package that also has a stupidly high resolution display. Tech progresses fast. Military tech does too, we just don't see it as quickly because it's mostly test bed stuff than see's several generations of iterations before it's finally used, or has aspects of it used and others scrapped for whatever reason. Just look at the gear a modern NATO infantryman has compared to 10 years ago. Their weapons and webbing and so on may be practically identical, but a lot of the extra crap like radios and other electronics are a fair bit different. The thing people seem to be largely missing too is that the back story in ArmA 3 says there's been conflict for some time. During times of war, tech progresses much faster. Look at WW2, or Vietnam for example. The stuff used at the beginning of those wars was more or less obsolete by the end of them. Even if they LOOKED the same, a lot of things will have changed under the surface like more efficient, more powerful engines in aircraft, more reliable firing mechanisms with "A1" type weapon modifications and the like. You just have to look at the immense amount of crap we produced during the cold war, and how since it's ended the progression has come to a (comparative) snails pace. Everything they're using in ArmA 3 is either real, or based very much in reality on current prototypes or other research. I'm glad to see a more balanced force again anyway. Fighting some farmers turned soldiers equipped with little more than an AK and maybe an RPG and some stolen explosives to make into an IED with Apache's and Abrams and Javelins and the like gets rather old. While in reality we certainly want to have the training, equipment and organisational advantage over our enemies, in a game (or simulation) we want something more challenging and even sided. If we don't like it, we have the map editor and the "Independent" faction and mods to change things to suit what we want. That's the brilliant thing about BIS games. They can be whatever you want them to be if you put in enough effort.

LMAO! That's a genius idea!

To avoid being "obsolete" by the time it comes out, try and get the best there is now, or near the best. I find it highly unlikely that from now to release a Core i7 2600K will be deemed "crap" lol. Maybe it will compared to the 3770K when the Ivy Bridge stuff comes out, but if you have a board that can accept the 2600K on the P67 or Z68 chipset you should be able to stick in one of the 3770K's with no problems. They're going to be around $250-300 ish, which is where the 2600K currently is, so you'll get a good few years out of your current board if you didn't go for a bargain basement one with the absolute minimum chipset and feature set to run your current set up. So far as AMD goes, not sure how their AM3+ platform is going to evolve. Let's hope the FX series gets a nice boost in performance either from software for just by refining the new architecture (like they did with the previous one for years and years), but if you have the higher end stuff right now, you should be fine for some time to come. The most likely area you'll want to take a good look at when ArmA 3 releases is your GPU. I've run ArmA 2 on this same rig using 3 GPU's and every time I've upgraded the performance in ArmA has greatly improved with it. I went from an 8800, to a GTX260 to a GTX560 Ti and it's night and day every time lol.

@rainbird. You don't own any software, or music, or movies, or pretty much anything in a similar vein. You're granted a license that allows you to use it in certain ways, and one way that is common with a physical copy is the right to sell it, but you must also not have any copies of it if you do so, so if you get a CD, rip it, then sell it to someone, that license stipulates you must also delete all of the copies you've made on your computer or MP3 player or whatever. Also, you haven't really been able to sell PC games for the best part of a decade due to the simple nature of being able to make a copy then just give it back. That isn't as simple on consoles as they're often updated to counter any developments in pirated copies and they can tie the disc ID to that user account/console if they wanted. Also on the prices. That isn't up to Steam/Valve, that's the developers/publishers who make that decision. So, complain to the developers/publishers that you're paying more for less.

I hope you don't ever have to use Origin then lol.