Walking slow and using the mouse wheel

[Walking slow and using the mouse wheel]

Yeah, and if you're not big on on-the-fly sensitivity adjustments, you can also use those, so you have 3 buttons under either index or middle finger (depending on design).

[Equiping items while being crouched]

With most launchers the backblast blows and burns your legs if fired from prone position.

Only light launchers a prone position is possible.

No, they don't. You simply don't fire them like you would a rifle. Instead, you're supposed to put your body at angle with the launcher. Depending on the launcher, I think it's 60-80 degrees. BTW, that position is very good for firing a rifle, too, and a somewhat "moderate" version (about 30 degrees) is used in sport shooting. You can shoot, quite comfortably, in fact, with your weapon perpendicular to your body.

[Excellent ballistics simuiation, but where's the defensive?]

When talking about "heavy rounds", I was thinking of sniper rifle bullets of the kind that would be stopped by a SAPI plate. Though really, the effect is only dramatic in case of a shotgun blast to a vest. Still, falling over from being shot is a real phenomenon, if not from the impact itself, then from the shock of being hit. I imagine that a surprise hit to the chest with the force of baseball pitch would cause most people to fall over (of course, there's the problem of making the game tell if you were expecting the impact or not). That could help gameplay, too. If you're hit and fall down, but have some low cover in front of you, you might chose to stay down and avoid a follow-up shot.

And unloading an MG belt into someone's leg will make them combat ineffective in the extreme, to put it clinically. Multiple gunshot wounds there are probably going to sever the femoral, meaning that the victim will bleed out in minutes. Given the likelihood of death in a combat environment, having the target simply die is appropriate enough. If a player was to survive such wounds, he should not be walking or fighting for the rest of the game anyways.

Yes, this should of course be a "mission kill", but not an outright kill. IRL, a medic can do a lot in "minutes". Perhaps the mission score (and results) should depend on sustained causalities, not only on inflicted ones. That would encourage players to save such hopeless cases and drag them back to base (if they can), just like real soldiers would. Just because a trooper can't be on any further use during the mission shouldn't be a reason to leave him for dead. That would, of course, need an expanded medical system, but ArmA needs that anyway.

[Excellent ballistics simuiation, but where's the defensive?]

I agree, this needs to be fixed, and quick. Right now, armor doesn't really work like it should. Overall, the damage system and medic system are very unrealistic. You can't kill a guy IRL by unloading an MG belt in his leg. This will shred the leg and probably cause violent bleeding, but even in case of complete amputation (sadly, BIS isn't interested in implementing that), it's possible to stop the bleeding and save the guy. In ArmA, shooting a guy in the ankle will sometimes make a kill. At least weapons and NVGs stop bullets, but they have another problem, namely they're perfectly functional after that.

Also, another problem is that ArmA doesn't seem to have a simulation for knocking people on their back without killing them. A heavy round to the COM )or above it) that doesn't penetrate the armor will likely throw the wearer off balance. Especially if the bullet is an expanding point one (I know they're illegal in warfare. Police uses them, though). That goes double for a shotgun blast, which won't penetrate even a wimpy vest, but will impart a lot of force upon the wearer. To properly simulate the effects of a bullet on a human (and not only that, explosion and fall damage also need this), far more than damage is needed.

[Realistic navigation difficulty setting??]

ArmA II had this right. On max difficulty, if you didn't have a GPS handy, you had to navigate using a compass and landmarks. Some vehicles had automatic map locator, but that was it. It did have the "instant map marker", I think this should also be made toggleable so that players would need to report the points of interest over the comms. I think that hardcore clans would welcome this.

[Preference of Arma 2 equipment]

The ArmA2 "Utility Truck" (and "Utility Truck (Open)" for that matter) vehicle I mentioned is the "Kamaz", the Russian truck under OPFOR and a fake logo that actually says "Zamak" since "3" equals "Z" in Russian and not some civilian vehicle you seem to be thinking of/confusing my post with. So the Kamaz trucks were already branded as "Zamak" in ArmA2. BIS has used fake or descriptive names before instead of brand names in previous titles including ArmA2 and they will do it again for legal reasons ;)

OK, so looks like the KAMAS I've seen had been from a mod. There's Ural, GAZ, Lada, UAZ (all very much existent companies) but no Kamaz. Guess they couldn't get the permission from Kamaz. Still, "Utility Truck" is better than "Zamak". The latter is only on a barely visible nameplate, it's not something you see unless you look for it. Not really an easter egg, but comes close. It's still a Kamaz, as far as I'm concerned, it's just that you can't say it aloud in-game. And I've got nothing against descriptive names, just against silly sounding fake ones.

[Is Arma 3 authentic?]

As for "people wanting to go further in 'DCS' direction", I think that is because they have no idea how DCS plays. Imagine if you had to dish out $2500 on a gaming rig another $1000 for necessary peripherals like HOTAS, TrackIR and rudder and then had to spend around a month in manuals and tutorial missions only to be able perform basic tasks in the game in a single machine with a perspective of spending another couple of months on learning to be combat effective.

What's there to imagine? I did just that. :) Granted, I got my HOTAS cheap (it's CH, by no means cheap or low quality, but I got lucky and bought a used set) and planning to get FreeTrack running (tried FaceTrack NoIR, too, but was too jerky) instead of paying for TrackIR, but the idea is the same (besides, you don't really need a headtracker, but it makes a lot of things much simpler). I only really gotten into Falcon 5.5 (same sim level as DCS, but older), but I'm the kind of player who loves details, switch-o-logy and complex simulation. I know how DCS plays.

Besides, I only used the titles for a rough comparison (they're extremes, and I wanted a clear example). HAWX is an accessible game. DCS is a hardcore sim. Now ArmA is something in between. Not really a proper sim (that's VBS), but not a normal tactical shooter, either (that's GRAW). My point was, until recently it seemed like it's evolving towards being more like VBS (while still maintaining relative accessibility), while AIII decided to go towards games like GRAW. It's still realistic and with very rich gameplay, but it starts using speculative equipment instead of equipping the player with what real soldiers/marines have, and by inventing speculative threats instead of simulating what the real troops face.

[Preference of Arma 2 equipment]

Generic names are fine. "Utility Truck" is generic, but who cares about the marque. I never noticed the names on cars, TBH. Besides, those were civilian cars, you couldn't even see the names in the editor, and those vehicles were hardly of any importance. ArmA III has fake names on military equipment, which is far more prominent, with the Zamak being a military truck, and named such in-game instead of going with a generic name. There were actual Kamaz and Ural trucks in AII (called such), and nobody seemed to mind.

To avoid lawsuits, no doubt, like the one with bell helicopters. But this has nothing to do with the future setting really. I don't think they made those choices as part of the fiction, but to meet business requirements.

Well, then why ArmA II (and OFP, before it) could have authentic names? I'm aware that sometimes, lawyers get in the way of authentic naming, but how come it has never been an issue until now?

Also, it's just a personal opinion, but those fake names suck. I really hope "Zamak" is just a placeholder, because while other names may sound a bit goofy, this one is just plain silly.

[Is Arma 3 authentic?]

I think the true question is "Is Arma 3 a video game?"

because half of the community seems to want VBS with out paying for it. The game doesn't have to be authentic to anything, its a game, the mere fact that a gun, ship or tank resembles a real life counter part is only gravy. So long as its believable i think is more important, Do the tanks have hover pads? do we have rocket back packs? do we have jump jets on boots that have some unlimited fuel supply with almost no weight to support its functionality. no because you wouldn't believe in any of that junk.

ArmA is no ordinary video game. Go play BF or GRAW if you're looking for a game. ArmA was, for quite some time, marketed as a simulator. It's the same difference as between DCS and HAWX. It's no wonder that people want ArmA to go further in "DCS" direction. ArmA III fails to meet those expectations, instead moving towards "HAWX" direction. It starts taking artistic liberties with equipment and using fake names, which is just as unbelievable as a jetpack. Yes, this was known to happen occasionally (As were jetpacks), but never on such a scale. AIII doesn't really feel authentic, even if the equipment is more or less based on what really exists.

[Convincing Huds and Cockpits - NO CROSSHAIRS!]

Yeah. The precision of the sight isn't an issue. The issue is that there's ArmA GUI overlay for what should be done with a diegetic HUD. In AII, HUDs were there, but they were hardly usable, and had "fake" crosshairs overlaid on them anyway. Even it TAB-lock doesn't go (it really, really should), it should be done so that everything is actually displayed on HUD, not on the GUI. Also, diegetic interface would give some purpose to the pilot's helmet. F-35 doesn't have a HUD, instead using a HMD (Helmet Mounted Display). If a grunt hops into an F-35, AII-style, he would have no helmet and therefore no HMD. Of course, since ArmA most likely won't simulate backup instrument panels for aircraft that use a HMD, this would render the plane unflyable without a helmet, but if you don't have a pilot's helmet, you're probably not supposed to fly the plane anyway.

[Preference of Arma 2 equipment]

It's really not even slightly difficult to extrapolate what a rifle firing a 6.5 cartridge down a 20 inch barrel would behave like. If thats your issue with the 'futuristic' setting "We don't know what the weapons are like", you're a twit.

TBH, this is not the biggest issue. In fact, once AIII comes out, I anticipate some talented gun nut will build himself an MX-series rifle, 6.5mm Grendel and all (or some rich gun nut will have one made). Also, a good approximation of the rifle's behavior would be quite well approximated by taking a regular 6.5mm Grendel rifle with a 20 inch barrel and fitting it with some tacticool accessories. That's not the issue. The issue is taking an obvious Commanche helo model and calling it "Blackfoot" or renaming Patria "Marshall" for little reason. Or the worst, calling a Kamaz truck "Zamak", which verges on parody. If I could change a single name in ArmA III, it would be this. I hate seeing obviously fake names for familiar equipment, something ArmA never done until now. Doubly so if the names are just silly.

Previous ArmA series had a very authentic atmosphere, they "felt" like reality. Real names, procedures you could recognize, everything down to details. Gameplay mechanics are one thing, but ArmA III feels less authentic than Tom Clancy's GRAW (to think I was afraid ArmA III might turn out like GRAW... Well, it turned out worse in that regard). It's not even about the story (we don't really know anything of it at this point) or the politics involved, but about all those little things that make it feel "right". GRAW, despite it's faults, managed it pretty well.

[Walking slow and using the mouse wheel]

Yeah. In reality, you can't just have "press it a bit", "halfway through" and "floor it" positions for the gas pedal, if you try that, your ride will be rather jerky (having recently gotten my driver's license, I know quite a bit about jerky driving. More than about smooth driving, in fact. :) ). This is especially important on an automatic, where the gas pedal also indirectly operates the gears. If you drive an automatic like in ArmA, you'd find yourself replacing the transmission the second the warranty expires, and they don't exactly come cheap.

[Marshall vs. Patria AMV]

Yeah, I don't see what's there to balance in ArmA III assets. Just make them act like they do in reality, then balance the missions around this. Simple enough, in my opinion, at least until you start using assets for which no data is available (or even exists...), that is.

[Preference of Arma 2 equipment]

War with Iran actually seemed likely for some time, but the recent election shook things up a bit .

About ArmA III being less realistic than II, I agree. ArmA III has gone too far into the future, and in my opinion jumped the shark. The "AKA-47" equipment naming adds insult to injury. You could imagine ArmA II happening somewhere in the former Yugoslavia, or OA to be "Afghanistan with serial numbers filled off", but AIII doesn't allow that. Not only does it use nonexistant/theoretical equipment (half of which will be canceled before 2035, considering the US military's track record these days), it renames the real vehicles it does use. And I don't like the names themselves, either, I can post an entire list of alternate propositions if you want. High-tech Iranian forces are ridiculous, considering what we've seen of their tech (remember that dinky "stealth fighter" they showcased some time ago?). IMO, BIS should get back to Cold War, or even to Vietnam. That would allow them to focus less on implementing a myriad of (highly hypothetical) advanced techs and more on improving the actual gameplay. At the same time, players would have to do with older, less advanced equipment (iron sigts FTW!) and thus have to rely more on features such as new stances and other such gameplay improvements in order to gain tactical advantage.

[Future ARMA games]

No MMO, please. Every franchise these days seems to be getting an MMO installment, after which nothing more comes out. Not so bad if dealing with an MMO RPG, where you can have an actual storyline, but an MMO FPS (and that's what ArmA MMO would be) are usually arcade-y arena-style games with no story to speak of, which is exactly the opposite of what ArmA always was.

[Ekranoplane-Orlyonok]

Nice. BTW, the Russians are also considering reactivating the Soviet era Lun-class ekranoplans. Those carry 8 anti-ship missiles instead of a single BTR. :) Could be rather useful when more ships are implemented, I think.

[Where are the 6 saved Game slots?]

I don't like this decision. I'm playing on a good computer, but it's simply not good enough for ArmA III. In ArmA II, multiple saves were the only way to do anything at all on my previous rig, because of crashes that often led to savegame corruption. That was a pretty crappy rig, and I upgraded since, but I'm afraid that once ArmA III starts doing really grand scale missions, I might lose an hour or so of gameplay due crashes and savegame corruption. Hasn't happened to me yet, and I didn't really need more than 1 save so far, but nobody says it won't happen at some point during campaign, especially if AIII will get Manhattan-style sandbox-y epics at some point.

[They better have female soldiers...]

Also, where are female civilians confirmed as features of the final game? I have not seen anything...

Well, OK, they're not confirmed, but don't you think it'd be really awkward if they weren't in-game? Maybe it's just me, but I think that completely excluding females from the game wouldn't really feel right.

[They better have female soldiers...]

They're now opening to women, by the time ArmA III rolls about they will probably be female grunts in the Marines.

What seems weird to me is all that talk about how much work it'd be to add new, female body models. Yes, it'd probably be plenty of work, but you guys missed the fact it would have to be done anyway. Female civilians will most likely be featured, it'd be really weird if they weren't. So, all that talk about skeletons, models, etc. won't matter, since BI will have to do that for civilians. They'll need walking and running animations, probably most basic stances and gestures, so I'm asking, why not add the rest? Sure, women are not common in combat, and probably won't be, but certainly are present. I see no reason not to include them, especially now that they Pentagon is opening combat roles for them.

[Arma 3 Gun license?]

It's inappropriate, because it's not a tribal name. It's an (English!) name of a loose tribal confederacy that called itself "Niitsitapi". Now, the Siksika tribe (actually translates to "Blackfoot") were a member of this confederacy that the English encountered first. Hence, the assumption that all Niitsitapi were Siksika, which they weren't. Now, Army helos use actual, untranslated (but anglicized) names of Native American tribes, so the helo should've been named "Siksika" or "Niitsitapi". They're rather obscure though, so I think Nawaho/Nawajo would actually be better.

[Arma 3 Gun license?]

Actually, the Ghosthawk is based on a real helo, though with some guesswork on how it really looks like. It's pretty much what SEALs used in the raid that killed Osama-bin-Landen.

Though the "Blackfoot" helo pissed me off a bit. It's a friggin' Commanche, so call it Commanche. Wouldn't be the first time DoD un-canceled a project. Or at least use another Indian tribe name. Those names sound cool, and it's an established pattern in US Army helo naming (Kiowa, Apache, Cheyenne... just to name a few). "Blackfoot" sounds goofy. "Nawaho" or "Cherokee", for example, would be much more fitting (they're still unused for a helo, IIRC). Or if you really want those guys, try "Niitsitapi". That's not really a single tribe, but I guess this could work. Or you could use "Siksika", which translates to "Blackfoot".

Also, the Commanche is famous. Even if it isn't officially a Commanche, I imagine that if it was made IRL, it'd be called "Commanche" by just about everyone besides officials, especially with a name like that. That's how we all call it already, BTW, this is just how it works.[/rant]

[Beta-compatible graphics setting guide]

Somebody once posted a nice guide explaining how to get a nice balance between looks and FPS in the Alpha. I can't find it now, but since Beta changed so much about graphics customization, I don't think it'd be of much use. Anyway, did anybody make a similar graphic settings overview/guide for ArmA III Beta? With all those new options, I'd like to know how they affect FPS and how to best make use of them.

[What's gonna happen to ArmA III Lite on June 18?]

Well, that's nice. If only the school year in Poland didn't end on 28th, only 3 friggin' days after Alpha Lite closes. Talk about rotten luck.

[What's gonna happen to ArmA III Lite on June 18?]

Thanks, I'll send her the link. Though still, it's completely different to watch people play the game and to actually experience it first-hand.

Still makes no sense especially when you mention that 25$ is a lot of money where you live, well 35$ is even more :)

It makes sense when you realize that she's not yet an ArmA fan. This is not the kind of money you spend on something completely unknown, and ArmA series is precisely this for her. It's not about her not having that sort of money, but about not knowing what she'll get for it. There's no telling if she'll actually like slow, complex gameplay of ArmA, especially coming from a much faster-paced and smaller Battlefield. I also didn't buy ArmA II before downloading and playing the free demo.

[Arma 3 Gun license?]

Note, those weapons are often different from the real ones in some way. TAR assault rifles are real (and, IIRC, have real name), but all 6.5mm rifles aren't (the cartridge is real though, it's probably 6.5mm Grendel), neither are OPFOR rifles using caseless ammo (the technology was used only once, in the G11 rifle, and didn't really work out).