SFsoldier

You are correct Chortles. There is a version of the UH-60 Blackhawk with some stealth technology but it is highly classified.

As a military analyst and expert on military hardware I can tell you some of the hardware is not actually real. Some of it is based on current projects or projected developments which may never enter military service. Nothing wrong with that, it's futuristic. It possibly takes away from some of the realism of Arma 1 and 2 but it is interesting. The Boeing RAH-66 Comanche project was cancelled in 2004 not the late 1990's. What is the AH-99 Blackfoot? Never heard of it. http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/boeing/comanche.page http://www.globalsecurity.org/ I don't use BIS for info on real military hardware. As for the Russian helicopter in the game which is a cross between an Mi-24 Hind, an Mi-28 Havoc and a Ka-52 pretty sure that doesn't exist. Click on the link for it on the BIS page you link to and it has a BIS logo and a humorous picture. Maybe it is you who should do some research. So there are no made up vehicles? I disagree. Most of them I think look pretty good but no doubt there are a few suspect inclusions.

Only if the case falls on a hard surface, like concrete. If it falls on grass or dirt you probably won't hear it. Not in real life anyway.

You are acting like the internet police and if you don't like the thread don't bother reading it or commenting on it. Yes thanks for informing me again of your views. Point taken.

As I said I did a search and couldn't find much at all. Perhaps I didn't look hard enough. A bit late now. This thread hasn't been deleted and I have received no warnings or infractions so I'm assuming that it is in fact within the rules despite your obvious annoyance at it's existence. By the way I think you mean should have used that one not should had used that ones. Maybe you should learn english a bit better if you're going to go around acting like the internet police.

I'll rephrase that slightly. Anyone can make a thread about whatever they want on BIS forums as long as it follows the rules. Happy? By the way I think you mean this is BI forums. Now I need a new video card I think I might get a GTX 760 should be good for Arma 3.

No they are not misguided. They are the opinions of a Flashpoint, Arma 1 and Arma 2 player. You just disagree so you label others opinions with derogatory terms. I could do the same to you but I respect others opinions. This is the internet anyone can make a thread about whatever they want. Arma 2 is one of my favourite games of all time. Arma 3 is good but different. Not sure I like it as much as I like Arma 2 though, that is an opinion. It's subjective. Real combat is gruesome much more so than what's represented in Arma 3. Watch the start of Saving Private Ryan. I'd just like a bit more realism. I think representing modern combat in a sanitized way deceives people into underestimating just how gruesome real combat is. So you want a realistic combat game where you go around killing the enemy but you don't want realistic effects of modern weapons? The last comment is aimed at anyone who has a problem with realistic wound effects. Why have a PG rated little kids version of combat? I think it would be awesome and kiddies can always turn it off in options if they don't like the site of blood. This is a modern warfare combat game not a train simulator.

Apologies if this has already been covered I did a search but couldn't really find what I was looking for. Guess I should've looked harder. Well I've already started the thread so it's a bit late now. Incessant whinning lol. There must be some area of the game you are critical of. As I said that is just a first impression the more I look at Arma 3 the more I like it and the more amazing it seems. If you hold your breath the scope wobble is much improved, no big problem. The small part of Stratis I looked at has fairly plain graphics. Now that I've looked at more of the game and Altis the graphics seem really good in parts. As for the blood and pain skins there are a few characters which have none but most of them are OK. I'd still like to see more head wounds though. A1 and some characters in A2 have really good head wounds. I've got A3 on about the same detail level as A2, high detail with 900m view. Not far I know but it's OK for infantry combat. A3 seems slightly more fluid and smoother than A2 which is great. Top marks for that. Had to download 3.3GB of data when I bought the game on DVD with no campaign not too impressed with that. BIS couldv'e done a bit better but still a good game overall.

I've been on a few internet forums I'm new here but don't let that fool you. Agree about the colours A3 has more. Yes I agree A2 can look bland and drab sometimes. Did I say I wanted a 'fantastic' crosshair? No. One you can actually aim something at would be nice. A1's blood was like pasta sauce? Yeah right. Much better than A3. Go back to A1 and look at the pain skins, they are awesome. Some of the best I've seen.

Don't get me wrong I don't hate Arma 3 at all, even at this early stage it's still quite good. If they can put in some realistic wound and blood effects that would be enough for me but I'm not holding my breath. As for my comments about the graphics being a little plain look at Arma 2 and turn off post process effects, this is how Arma 3 looks albeit with more detail, now turn on post process effects and observe the difference it makes. Arma 3 lacks these effects and would look great with them. Some of you seem to defend Arma 3 like you work for BIS or something surely there must be some aspects of the game you can be critical of. Nothing is perfect. On the plus side for Arma 3 the maps are great and huge the graphics very detailed and nice sound effects. Now if you disagree with someone's comments or opinion saying they are on drugs or other such pointless comments just shows your own inability to express your view in an intelligent way.

Those are the first impressions of Arma 3 from a very experienced Flashpoint, Arma 1 and 2 player. No need to get snooty because you disagree. The scope wobbles far too much for me it is ridiculous. As I said I can hold a real rifle in real life much more steady than that. You like Arma 3 fair enough I'm not sure I like it. I'll play it some more but the lack of realistic blood and wounds are turning me off. A1 and A2 good but A3 you shoot a guy in the head and there's not a mark or anything. Pretty stupid. Would like to see realistic combat with realistic wounds. ---------- Post added at 18:16 ---------- Previous post was at 18:14 ---------- That's exactly the impression I'm getting. But A3 is still quite good and should only get better. ---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ---------- The main thing I am disappointed with in Arma 3 is the lack of realistic wound effects. Arma 1 and 2 were quite good but Arma 3 I've noticed less blood and wound effects. Some characters seem to be completely devoid of any upper body wound effects at all. You shoot a guy in the head and there's not a mark on him. You can't make a realistic combat game without realistic combat and the consequences of it on the participants. Try to justify it any way you want but it is not at all realistic. It's Playstation Xbox arcade console style. Reminds me of Far Cry 2 and looks similar.

The main thing I am disappointed with in Arma 3 is the lack of realistic wound effects. Arma 1 and 2 were quite good but Arma 3 I've noticed less blood and wound effects. Some characters seem to be completely devoid of any upper body wound effects at all. You shoot a guy in the head and there's not a mark on him. You can't make a realistic combat game without realistic combat and the consequences of it on the participants. Try to justify it any way you want but it is not at all realistic. It's Playstation Xbox arcade console style. Reminds me of Far Cry 2 and looks similar.

The Boeing RAH-66 Comanche was a real aircraft but the project was cancelled in 2004. Just one example. http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/boeing/comanche.page It's interesting they put in different hardware than was used in the other Arma series but possibly takes away from the realism of A1 and A2.

Military hardware not in service and based on speculative concept info are made up.

Hi fellow Arma fans. I'm a big fan of the whole series and really enjoyed Operation Flashpoint. I still play Arma 1 sometimes, Arma 2 is one of my favourite games and I just got Arma 3. Comparing Arma 2 and 3 I find Arma 3 is quite a lot different from 1 and 2. This thread is for people to comment on differences between Arma 1, 2 and 3 and how they like or dislike them. My first impressions of Arma 1 and Arma 2 were wow this is absolutely incredible. First impressions of Arma 3 were not as favourable. Good frame rate and very smooth on my system but the combat not so impressed. 1 The crosshair is not as good or useful as A1 and 2. 2 Using a scope on a rifle it wobbles around far too much. I can hold a rifle scope much more steady than that in real life. 3 The grenade launcher is hard to aim and use. 4 The blood and wound effects are not as extensive or realistic as A1 and A2. I think A1 has the best blood and wound effects. 5 The graphics look a bit plain and not as interesting as A2 which has great post process effects which seem to be lacking in A3. 6 Some of the vehicles and aircraft are made up. 7 No campaign on release. 8 Combat feels more arcade console style. The good. 1 Runs well on my system with good fluid frame rate. 2 Good sound effects. 3 Huge environments. I just got Arma 3 recently and those are just my first impressions. Will comment more when I get to know the game better. I know Arma 1 and 2 very well and I think those are absolutely incredible. I know a lot of people like Arma 3 better than 2 but I'm not so sure. Different yes. Better? I suppose that is a matter of opinion.