arigram

Seriously, I think BI should REALLY include female soldiers in Arma 3, not only because I agree with the idea personally, but just so it can screw with the people so obsessed with this matter. Forty seven pages, a flood of shameful childish posts and personal back'n'forths laid out so thick that you can make jam out them. And this is just the Arma 3 edition, excluding all the years before.

Well... we haven't seen any of the towns or villages yet up close. The buildings we've seen from afar could well be placeholders, or a couple simple models to populate the locations as to get the feel of the landscape. My bet is that the artists are really hard at work constructing the unique buildings, interiors, town objects, signs, etc The general landscape seems to be done, but we haven't seen any area of special character salt as the salt quarry. We have also yet to see the Greek population for that matter.

That is true, but I assumed they want all kinds.

Excellent, thank you. How about the definite "no's", things people asked about that won't be in, for logical reasons. I managed to catch Lord I. talking about constraints of time and budget and possible implementation in future expansions of desirable things that couldn't make it into Arma 3, so not about these. Btw, if BI wants a Greek face, I will be more than happy to lend my mug to the game, being typical and handsome and all.

Any information from the audio interview which I only managed to catch a couple of snippets?

Actually, I think the opposite is true. Excuse me if I go back to camera analogies, but even though now almost everyone has an access to an one-click picture taking device of infinite capacity and simple post-processing workflows, the person using the tool is still the one who defines the quality of the end result, not the tool it is self. Even though most of my cameras are manually operated, I understand the need and use cameras with automatic functions in the situations that need them (which are not many, mind you). Sure, the average person will snap a stupid snap and make it even more grotesque with their pirated copy of Photoshop and call it art, but the real photography still survives. Take software for example. Take image processing, 3D modeling, non linear video editing. They have grown immensely in power and features since I started using them twenty + years ago. But not only did they add features, they simplified or made automatic operations that needed an immense amount of work before, such as for example in 3D modeling and animation, adding physics, inverse kinematics, fluids, particles, hair, etc. Nowadays its much faster and easier to create a human model that looks and behaves realistically and thus you are able to more to even more advanced projects. Sure, someone lacking the skills, talent and ideas to take it far will just mess with the filters, operations and wizards that are right in front of them and don't go further, but that's true no matter how advanced the software is. If more advanced mission features become more accessible then more people will be making more complex missions, not the other way around. Talented people will always create something better, why not assist them? A skill in programming or the programmer's mind set are not the only thing that sets people apart. I am no programmer nor able or want to think like one, but that doesn't mean I am not capable of creating something of value if the tools were more accessible for people like me.

The editor should be made more accessible and people have made some really valid suggestions such as regarding the weapon loadout. The whole fear of "dumbing down" the editor and making it a simplistic toy for the unwashed masses is simply absurd. It reminds me of the CLI vs GUI flamewars that appear every now and then in the Linux world when Ubuntu comes up with a new tool or redesign to make the computer more accessible to non-programmers. I am a photographer. I made the choice of using film for much of my photography. I use large cameras with very limited frames on every roll of film, I develop by myself, I print the photographs with an enlarger on photo paper in a dark, dark room. I mix smelly chemicals, I memorize numbers, I do silly gestures to control the printing, I spend much of my time in the dark. But I don't ask casual snapshooters or professionals to follow my example. I let them use whatever makes more sense for them. It would be absurd to belittle people because they follow the common, convenient and productive way based on some elitist ideology of judging work on how difficult it is. We're talking about the mission editor of a game. Not a general computer programming language. You don't sacrifice anything by improving the GUI and the accessibility. The easier it is to make a mission the better the editor is. It will be more productive, it will be less time consuming, it will be less effort to create something complex and it will bring more talent. The less energy and time that one needs to spend to make simple things work, the more energy and time can be devoted to more complex things and more content. BI HAS been taking steps in making the editor more powerful but also more accessible. The 3D Editor will be a vast improvement in accessibility. I want to see a more accessible editor. I don't have time to devote in learning and applying programming skills so I can play a game. I do have some ideas on missions, I have access to people with more military experience and have some understanding of "directing", so I want to put this all together with the least amount of effort and time.

I think that real pilots and/or residents of Seattle should either have their own thread to post their detailed and very important analysis or feel free to start their own threads. Thank you for taking them time to assist in making the simulator a more realistic one.

Cameron: The restriction would be optional, like you said, up to the mission maker and/or server. rfc: I understand the "fear" of "consolization" with such a feature present and no doubt many would see it as such. But, Arma already has arcade-like achievements and unlocking in the Armoury playroom, not only to give a light hearted tone in an otherwise serious game (but keeping it separate from the main world) but also to give motivation to players to play with it. My proposal is not about hardcoded restrictions, its about registering the information that can be used by mission designers IF they choose to. It doesn't have to overly visible or marketed as a "leaderboard" or "achievement list" ala Battlefield. And its not about empty, vain medals and titles, its about helping mission makers and group mates decide who has the skill to use limited, dangerous, costly (in Warfare) and tricky to operate equipment even if they don't know the player in person. Also, considering that learning to use such equipment would require time and skill, that is devotion and study, it would mean they would be treated with more respect and not like the equivalent of chewing gum. Thus, it would be up to the mission maker to establish that not everyone can run around with RPGs, get in a tank alone and abandon it a few meters further, crash a helicopter full of passengers, get in the gunners seat and not know how to aim. I repeat, optional, up to the mission maker. But, there has to be a system built in the game and not just be a part of a mission, so it can be used everywhere if so desired. As far as the save place of the info, yes, it can be the profile on your harddisk with the mentioned disadvantage but that can happen to all your files in your computer, backing up is always the answer! I have lost Arma profiles before which meant I had to start Tutorials and the Armoury from zero again. And yes, BI, can establish a central online database but that would be up to them and only if they want to advertise the feature. I would be satisfied with a few extra lines written on your profile that mention the name of a mission and how many time it was completed successfully and how many hours have been logged in a certain vehicle or how many targets have been destroyed with a certain weapon. (so mission makers can make training missions of their own for new content, or can use the information as part of a larger campaign or RPG-like setting) I don't see the complexity of this feature or any disadvantage if its optional.

As much as I loved BI's work on Chernarus, Takistan and the various vehicles and weapons, Arma 3 will have new technology, fresh weaponry and a close-to-real-life freaking Greek island! So, yeah, no reason to go back to Arma 2! Especially if the older content gets ported on the new engine. (for one thing, present day military equipment mods on Arma 3 is a given)

Cut and pasted from the helicopter flight model thread: What if a player required to earn his wings before being allowed by the game on the pilot seat? Already you can block players from entering certain vehicles, there is a pilot class (although in Arma 3 it would be just a change of clothes) and there are flying tutorials, armory test flights and unlocking achievements. Combine all that and you could have a system built in the game, where a vehicle's access anywhere is restricted to a player that has finished the relevant training mission(s) and/or drove the particular vehicle successfully in an Armory-like mission. And that could work with all vehicles and even weapons, so tutorials are not just mere suggestions, but required training material for more advanced gameplay. Of course, that also could be an option for game servers and doesn't have to be a "hard" denial of access of a vehicle, but can be translated as a small graphic next to a player's name or profile that represents their possession of a "driver's license to let other players know how skilled is that player and if they should trust him with their safety when being his passengers. The "wings" could be bronze, silver, gold, etc according to the level of the training mission completed (simplified/advanced flight model, etc), their performance, the expertise on a particular vehicle and their logged hours. So, yes, at first it looks like an arcade shooter's achievement/stat silly ego-boost, but in Arma can be used for practical, realistic purposes.

My first reaction was similar: why not have the most realistic flight model hardcoded in a realistic combat simulator? Speaking against it made as much as sense as taking out other difficult yet realistic Arma mechanics. Then I understood the practicality of being optional, since after all Arma's focus is still the infantry. Then again, isn't one's lack of skill costing the virtual lives of a whole group, an important part of a true to life war simulation, whether is transport flying, grenade tossing or general fighting? This might belong in another thread, as it is a suggestion, but what if a player required to earn his wings before being allowed by the game on the pilot seat? Already you can block players from entering certain vehicles, there is a pilot class (although in Arma 3 it would be just a change of clothes) and there are flying tutorials, armory test flights and unlocking achievements. Combine all that and you could have a system built in the game, where a vehicle's access anywhere is restricted to a player that has finished the relevant training mission(s) and/or drove the particular vehicle successfully in an Armory-like mission. And that could work with all vehicles and even weapons, so tutorials are not just mere suggestions, but required training material for more advanced gameplay. Of course, that also could be an option for game servers and doesn't have to be a "hard" denial of access of a vehicle, but can be translated as a small graphic next to a player's name or profile that represents their possession of a "driver's license to let other players know how skilled is that player and if they should trust him with their safety when being his passengers. The "wings" could be bronze, silver, gold, etc according to the level of the training mission completed (simplified/advanced flight model, etc), their performance, the expertise on a particular vehicle and their logged hours. So, yes, at first it looks like an arcade shooter's achievement/stat silly ego-boost, but in Arma can be used for practical, realistic purposes.

Red Orchestra 2 is coming...

They have. That's why they're making Take On Helicopters, for serious helicopter simulator fans and Carrier Command as an action game, which unlike TKOH and Arma is set on a fictional world and with a more simplified (but not dumb run&gun) gameplay. Not to mention the affiliation with the VBS studio. BI is expanding by themselves and I believe they know what they're doing. If they get bought by a "Greedy Company" it will certainly affect their plans in a very negative way. I would like to see BI stand on their own feet with a budget able to fulfill their large creative ambitions. Its not that that BI never aimed high, they were constrained by the realities of a small developer. Imagine the capabilities of Arma if BI had the budget they needed. There are so many under-appreciated, even by Arma fans, technologies and artistic creations that just needed a bit more air to breathe and flourish.

Considering that Arma 3 is very much a work in progress, with so few details known and so little demonstrated, will take at least one year to be ready (and it could be delayed even more) and that is targeting a smaller audience than big mainstream games, it has no chance. Its a popularity contest. Arma is not popular. It could go against everything else though if there was an award for complexity, scope and technical achievement.

Arma 3 will most certainly not have Mechs...

The sea! (yes, its my personal obsession)

How so? My point was that a model doesn't have that much influence in the realism of the gameplay and that I like the slight freedom of creativity that was given to BI artists.

Don't listen to anyone speaking bad of your recreation, your Aegean looks perfect!

Everyone does. That's why they're asking for complex penetration modeling, realistic ballistics, truthful flight dynamics, believable physics, 3D scopes, functioning screens-scopes-HUDs, guidance computers and smart weapons, better animated humans, immersive environment, more challenging weather and so on and so forth. Realism is not only about the appearance of the models. Artists handle the models and I like that the have some freedom of expression. They are still very much based on reality and apart from some looks, it is barely Star-Wars like pseudo-sci-fi. There are tons of simulators that have touched fictional scenarios, from the old Microprose F-15 Strike Eagle II to Falcon 4 and its future war of Korea to even the DCS series. They kept the "old" aircraft and transported it to the future, which is hardly realistic. And I don't want to see any more Cold War era and current US war recreations. I understand that the Anglo-Saxon coalition that is fighting these wars have a lot of fans from their countries, but there is plenty of present content to satisfy them. And I am sure the Cold War Rearmed mod is going to be converted to Arma 3. And I am sure many other mods will too, covering modern or WWII or other conflicts. BIS have done Cold War, they did modern warfare, they simulated current theaters of operation with great accuracy, but they have shown that they don't want to go back in time to WWII, Korea or Vietnam. No one know where Arma 4 will be based. So, what's the big deal? You will get your "realistic" models, if not from BI. But the Bohemians are working for realism and realism goes far beyond model appearance. I hope more for realistic engine updates and new weapon and infantry capabilities but in a fresh environment with new vehicles.

Arma 3 will be more factual than fictional (according to the slider concept). Considering its still a game and not a training simulator found in a real army facility, it has to make some concessions in regards to absolute realism since it has to cover a large scope of simulation. Its not "one-vehicle study simulator" where you can devote all your resources in making sure all the switches are in the right place and all your buttons function as it should. There is another company that does that. Arma is a war game, a battleground simulator, an action/strategy game in the first perspective with a focus on combined warfare and a slight leaning towards the infantry side. You know that, we all know that. Vehicles are just models, hollow software representations that apart from appearance cannot function realistically 100% in this game. So, even if the Apache looks 100% from the outside, its function will be much more limited than it would be in a study simulator. In the end, then, its just the appearance that makes it "realistic" or not. If you took the Apache model and added a second rotor or removed one cockpit but retained the functionality as in shooting cannons, missiles and turning as expected, they only thing that would make it "unrealistic" would be its outer appearance. And IMHO, that's a pretty shallow point of view. Argue with DCS over the fidelity of their simulator, but in Arma you are only arguing over the visual appearance of a model. If the Comanche doesn't do it for you, download a community Apache and make a mission out of that, simple. I want to see the Comanche. I want to drive something new, something fresh. And in my mind it will be as realistic as the Arma (not another game) experience can give you. Hell, maybe in the future, BI could be able to have different games communicating with another (as DCS claims it will), so Take On Helicopters, or Tanks, or whatever, could merge with Arma. One game to provide the vehicle simulation fidelity, another the operational environment. After all, they have demonstrated that technology between them is shared and that TKOH can read Arma maps.

My mistake, I meant to write "flight" not "fighter". After all "Civilian fighter" doesn't really make much sense, unless you're talking about guerrillas or that sort of thing.

People will always find a reason to complain. Whether it's based on present, historical, abandoned, prototyped, proposed or fictional equipment, there always going to be something wrong. I personally trust BI to deliver something realistic (as in, able to exist and function in a believable way), but with a touch of imagination. You can drag a slider from completely imaginary to completely naturalistic and its position is always going to suit one person and not others. like: imaginary <-----------O-----------------------> naturalistic I understand that many people want the slider all the way to the right, but like I said, I like a bit of imagination, especially if its going to be the same tired old US Army and Russia and their cold war allies. I am tired of Abraams and Humvees and Colt rifles and Kalashnikovs and same T-72 variations. Since the game has to please the American crowds to have a chance to sell in a descent number and not be considered terribly obscure, the choice of familiar territory but with a "twist" seems logical. I mean, how long will this continue: Should Arma 3 be added on the comparison screenshot with the SAME OLD stuff? Armies don't change their equipment as fast as games do. New equipment will not only have some degree of refreshing imagination, but may also be a demonstrator of new engine technology. Also, considering that the moding community will come up with their own versions of equipment that EXISTS in the vanilla game or port their older models, there is not going to be a shortage of current era realistic equipment. And you will able to argue with the modelers to your heart's content. There are ENOUGH A-10s and M1A1s and AH-64s and T-80s and Kalashnikovs and Colts to gorge upon and fill one's "realistic military" lust. I want BI to deliver something fresh and imaginary. And I know its not going to be Crysis or Carrier Command or Halo or even COD. Its going to be Arma/OFP. Also, many "realistic simulators" of the past where based on fictional or classified vehicles, because for one thing, they couldn't possibly depict them realistically in the hardware of the 80s and early 90s, so they had a lot of leeway to play around. Even an existing plane would have its cockpit simplified and rearranged to fit the capabilities computers of the time. The end simulation experience was more than good enough. This was my first military simulator (for my Commodore 64): I personally loved the fact that I could "preview the future" or get inside a classified, secret, advanced technological machine (which at the time, the public didn't know if it actually existed or not and in which form). But I guess I never been much of a bolt counter. I trust BI. They are making a civilian flight simulator with top accuracy and a futuristic action/strategy game and I believe Arma 3 is something else all together. The vehicles may not have every switch and level functioning and their handling characteristics not faithful as TKOH (for many good reasons) but they aren't going to be the Mantras of Carrier Command. (although if you think about it, apart from the futuristic equipment, there is nothing really about Carrier Command that can't be replicated with today's equipment, so you can recreate CC with Arma) I seriously don't understand the constant bitching.

The water is perfect, trust me, I should know, I spent most of my life next to and in it. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8Kk1rwgmPD4/TZI3vN62TsI/AAAAAAAAC5I/577uR3wqmBY/s1600/limnos0002.jpg And from my personal cycling album (untouched shitty cell phone snaps):

It might not be possible with ArmA at the moment but maybe 3Dconnexion and BI could work to add support in the future? ArmA has included support for TrackIR, a first in the FPS genre and a valuable device it has been. For an introduction to the SpaceNavigator, head over to the company site: http://www.3dconnexion.com/products/3a1d.php SpaceNavigator is the smallest version of the 3d controlling device and while affordable, an incredibly usefull tool for any computer graphics artist. Imagine the possibillities of controlling your character, not with a digital keyboard but with an analog, press-sensitive, 3D device. You use a very small amount of force to move it around and being pressure sensitive it means that an action can be performed differently. Its also quite comfortable and requires for example no effort to retain the forward tilt by just resting your hand at the position. So, if you bind the tilt to character movement there is no effort to keep going in any direction and depending on how far you tilt the device you can control the speed of the movement fluidly but also very quickly. I don't have to mention how much more intuitive and comfortable it is over the keyboard and you have more of the feeling of controlling a puppet than pushing the buttons of a robot. Some example motions would be: - Character Tilt/Roll: Movement. Control speed by amount of tilt. Spin: Head tilt. Pan Up/Down: Jump/Climb Up/Get Up. Get Down/Climb Down. Push down more to go from standing to prone and vice versa. Buttons: Reload, Mode - Aircraft Tilt/Roll: Control of the nose. Spin: Rudder. Pan Up/Down: Thrust. Buttons: Mode, Countermeasures - Vehicles Roll or Spin: Steering wheel Push Up/Down or Titlt Back/Front: Gas/Brake Buttons: Horn - Turrets Roll or Spin: Turret Left/Right Tilt Front/Back: Turret Up/Down Buttons: Mode, Fire What do you think?