sothis

I won't start discussing the part about ArmA always being a first person game, because there is nothing to even disagree on to start with. Third person views give you a much better sense of awareness in comparison to first person. I'm sure the logical thing here is to say 'Sure you can see directly over that wall at the enemy just waiting for you', and yes, if one could magically make that NOT happen, it would be great. However, first person view limits you in many ways, and to just mention one there is peripheral view. Thus far the only thing peripheral about the first person view in the arma series is the white, red and green dots. It's simple really.

Finally. Lets hope this does not intrude and disrupt the marketing campaign. My question is as follows: Is or was the final image of the 4 combined logic gated arma 2 screenshots a REAL photo from real life? :-) good question to ask since many people believe it to be an actual screenshot of Arma 3 ;> Hope to get this question included :P

With the announcement of ArmA 3 I suggest we all join up on IRC on the server Quakenet, in the channel #arma3 and discuss! :-D

There we have the infamous chopper :D

WAAAAAARRRRRRHHHHHH NIIIIIICE

Adding three zeroes to the end of that binary code does not satisfy the broken application. Tried using another converter and got nothing but nonsense, but for the sake of the cluefinding, this is the nonsense I found: without adding three zeroes. When I DID add the three zeroes, it gave me the same result. We have to consider firstly if all answers are correct - we have not done so just yet, have we?

If that is correct then the binary code converter comes up with "10100111011100110110000111101110010111101100101111: Error: Malformed binary. Your binary code is must be divisible by 8". Thus either the questions asked are not correctly answered or we have to look at possibilities of translating whatever is hidden in this code in another way - such as hex, for example.

My bad - I wrote that entirely wrong :P I meant to say I would buy his copy if he was right, and the other way around - Not him to buy me a copy no matter if he wins or loses the bet. Lol. In any case, I was only trying to debunk the whole thing with that very conclusion of the bet being on if he was up for it :P

Look, as much as I would DIG this if was an in-game screenshot, it is not. You mustn't forget that even if the image analysis proved that some stuff has been edited in, it does not mean that any of it is at all copy/pasted from in-game onto a real photo. Not even for a bit. There are talented people out there who can make stuff look really real but isn't, and I do keep that in mind, which is why I won't say that the image is entirely real. I realize your point which is different to what I just wrote, but what I'm really interested in pointing out is these simple question: What compels you to think that it is an in-game screenshot? There is no real evidence that supports the claim that it is an in-game screenshot And furthermore, have you forgotten the first "screenshots" we got? http://www.aan-online.com/arma2-hacked-page/ These are real photos aswell. Taken that into consideration, lets just discuss the plausibility that BI DID that image as an in-game screenshot. What would be the ups, and what would be the downs? Ups would inevitably include: Showing off their great technology more photorealistic that possibly any game ever made, because really, it is beyond hyper-photorealistic if it is in-game. Another up would be to really stoke up the community to get excited. The downs (if it WAS an in-game screenshot): Hyping up players for a mil-sim sequel to arma (because there is no way it would be arma 2 with upgraded graphics), only to have the players stunned by the massive requirements it would mean to even process the game at a minimum of performance effect - just to name one. A second would be that we, the community, eventually will find out that it is in essence NOT an in-game photo but rather a very well-rendered 3D scene; thus not an actual game-renderable feature. And just to shoot it down furthermore; it is a much too dense plume of smoke to even begin to be part of a videogame as of yet. There is simply no technology made to perfectly simulate smoke to look even a bit like real world smoke, and whats worse is that only alpha-smoke thus far has achieved the most real-looking smoke effect. I mean, I could continue going over things in that photo that could not possibly be game-rendered, but it would be a bigger wall of text than it already is. Whats most important, if you ask me, is the fact that no game developer in their right mind would ever post an in-game screenshot with edited-in helicopters, smoke, or whatever, to promote their game 'silently' through an ARG such as this one. It is just not the way things go. So to conclude this, I am very much willing to take that bet, and I will personally contact Dwarden when all of this is over, and ask him whether it is real or not, and if it happens to be a real photo, you buy me a copy of what this ARG is about to announce to us, and if it is in fact an in-game screenshot, I buy you the copy - PM me if we got a deal ;) Edit: thanks PurePassion - Not a good idea to put such a big image in lol. Second edit: If it really is ArmA 3, do keep in mind that an announce would not necessarily mean that it would come out in, what half a year? Not even close to that, but if we were to think it was close to that, then ATLEAST sometime in Q1 2012, but more than likely more like Q3 or Q4. Remember the time between ArmA: Armed Assault and ArmA 2? :)

No. An underscore is only required in the original foldername of the ACE folder of JSRS, as it looks like so: JSRS_ACE, however the rest have dashes in them. Looking at it as we speak.

You are correct, but an ARG would not progress if the recipient (most likely us, the community participating in this ARG) would not be able to see this part of steganography. One could debate whether it is 'correct' steganography because of the fact that we see it, but it could very well be just that, as we are supposed to find clues here and there.

Someone help to point out what this means.

Enough talk about what chopper it is from me - at this point it is probably a tiny bit irrelevant :)

It most definately looks like it has double-rotors and the design is not even close to looking like a Havoc, if you ask me :)

Looks like a Kamov 52 Alligator.