ARMA 2 ; ARMA 2: Operation Arrowhead ; ARMA 3 - V. March 5 - Games

Needs more JTF2. Canada represent. [editline]28th February 2013[/editline] No Canadian military mod ever seems to get far in ARMA, BF2 Project Reality I think might be the only game mod with a fleshed out Canadian Military.

[QUOTE=Falchion;39748422]ARMA 3 is going to have more spec ops than regular grunts in the unit selection, atleast on blufor side. There's like the special forces of several european countries, one or two (or three?) american special forces groups and then the generic us army. edit: Also I don't understand why people hate how bohemia went for something fresh, all of the gear and vehicles are still going to be authentic (even though some of the stuff is not yet off the drawing board). People tend to only make mods based on generic todays us army all the time so you'll get what you want.[/QUOTE] Agreed. In the showcases they always seem to be playing as regulars though. I only remember seeing SF guys in the Stratis showcase. Guess we'll just have to see.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;39747694] Like I remember when "FUTURE WARFIGHTER" came out or whatever and it had all these things we were supposed to have by 2012 which included XM8 rifles being standard issue, automated drone vehicles etc. etc. It just seems cliche, like they're stuck in that 50's era view of the wild future that usually ends up being a couple dozen years behind the curve of what they imagined.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;XvVZRwlwebo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvVZRwlwebo[/video] 2008

[QUOTE=Tuskin;39748443]Needs more JTF2. Canada represent. [editline]28th February 2013[/editline] No Canadian military mod ever seems to get far in ARMA, BF2 Project Reality I think might be the only game mod with a fleshed out Canadian Military.[/QUOTE] There is one Canadian dude in the campaign. :v:

[QUOTE=The Haski;39748482][video=youtube;XvVZRwlwebo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvVZRwlwebo[/video] 2008[/QUOTE] That's a good game. I was referring to this one. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOOS1eC2QRE[/media] Hence why I specifically listed it's title in my post. Advance Warfighter. [editline]28th February 2013[/editline] Don't get me wrong either, I loved GRAW but I'd never ever call it a Sim or anything. It was an action game, so the futuristic bullshit was appropriate. ArmA 3 markets it's game as a military simulator so it feels ill-fitting.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;39748508]That's a good game. I was referring to this one. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOOS1eC2QRE[/media] Hence why I specifically listed it's title in my post. Advance Warfighter. [editline]28th February 2013[/editline] [B]Don't get me wrong either, I loved GRAW but I'd never ever call it a Sim or anything. It was an action game, so the futuristic bullshit was appropriate. ArmA 3 markets it's game as a military simulator so it feels ill-fitting.[/B][/QUOTE] How does somewhat more futuristic equipment not make it a simulator anymore? Doesn't that have to do more with the combat, vehicle handling and so forth? The ballistics and shit is still the same in ArmA 3 as it is today.

[QUOTE=Falchion;39748422]all of the gear and vehicles are still going to be authentic (even though some of the stuff is not yet off the drawing board).[/QUOTE] Just because there's some CG concept art floating around DARPA doesn't mean it's practical. One of the patrol vehicles in ArmA III has this huge forward facing unreenforced single-pane glass window that just glares like a sore thumb, even though when you look at modern MRAPs that may have only been around for a year or so they all try to cut down on window size and usually have some sort of heavy reinforcement or protection. Even if it's a future setting, a lot of the stuff they're bringing up seems like it was chosen more for aesthetic reasons than practicality.

[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;39748639]How does somewhat more futuristic equipment not make it a simulator anymore? Doesn't that have to do more with the combat, vehicle handling and so forth? The ballistics and shit is still the same in ArmA 3 as it is today.[/QUOTE] When you start adding rail guns and implementing theoretical, experimental and unimplemented equipment that don't contribute to a realistic simulation of a modern combat environment (or a near-future one) For example, the GRAW heads-up display felt like something from a Starship Troopers movie rather than something realistically possible at the supposed time it was implemented in the game. We were trying different HUD concepts at the time but a majority were just too complicated, big or impractical hence why we don't have them today. We're still kinda working on it but it's 2013 and we don't have anything beyond Live-Feed Helmet-Cameras being used in deployments. Land Warrior was supposed to be standard issue years ago but it's still got a long, long way to go. [t]http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/06/lw_training_dec_165.jpg[/t] Personally I think private industry is going to beat the Military to a HUD. Google Glasses for example, I can see military application in those if they're truely what they're advertised to be.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;39748726]When you start adding rail guns and implementing theoretical, experimental and unimplemented equipment that don't contribute to a realistic simulation of a modern combat environment (or a near-future one) For example, the GRAW heads-up display felt like something from a Starship Troopers movie rather than something realistically possible at the supposed time it was implemented in the game. We were trying different HUD concepts at the time but a majority were just too complicated, big or impractical hence why we don't have them today. We're still kinda working on it but it's 2013 and we don't have anything beyond Live-Feed Helmet-Cameras being used in deployments.[/QUOTE] ARMA3 is not going to end up like GRAW. If anything you should be happy they aren't going for something just like the ordinary, theres going to be plenty of us army reskins for you to sperg about later.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;39748726]When you start adding rail guns and implementing theoretical, experimental and unimplemented equipment that don't contribute to a realistic simulation of a modern combat environment (or a near-future one) For example, the GRAW heads-up display felt like something from a Starship Troopers movie rather than something realistically possible at the supposed time it was implemented in the game. We were trying different HUD concepts at the time but a majority were just too complicated, big or impractical hence why we don't have them today. We're still kinda working on it but it's 2013 and we don't have anything beyond Live-Feed Helmet-Cameras being used in deployments.[/QUOTE] Okay, okay, I will admit that the railgun tank thing is pretty stupid.

[QUOTE=Profanwolf;39748780]ARMA3 is not going to end up like GRAW. If anything you should be happy they aren't going for something just like the ordinary, theres going to be plenty of us army reskins for you to sperg about later.[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to be a sperg. All I said was "I don't like the new direction of the series" and everyone started discussing it so I started to contribute to the conversation. I don't think it's going to be like GRAW just that it's a silly direction to be taking what they always call "The most advance military simulation on Earth"

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;39748822]I don't think it's going to be like GRAW just that it's a silly direction to be taking what they always call "The most advance military simulation on Earth"[/QUOTE] But it still is that, adding futuristic gear doesn't make it not a simulator, the simulation part isn't about all equipment and vehicles being 100% accurate.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;39748822]I'm not trying to be a sperg. All I said was "I don't like the new direction of the series" and everyone started discussing it so I started to contribute to the conversation. I don't think it's going to be like GRAW just that it's a silly direction to be taking what they always call "The most advance military simulation on Earth"[/QUOTE] I don't recall them saying that, VBS would be closer to that than ARMA :v:

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;39748822]I'm not trying to be a sperg. All I said was "I don't like the new direction of the series" and everyone started discussing it so I started to contribute to the conversation. I don't think it's going to be like GRAW just that it's a silly direction to be taking what they always call "The most advance military simulation on Earth"[/QUOTE] Look, to me, simulation means feeling like you are actually doing the thing that it's simulating. ArmA is a combat simulator. To me, it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to you use equipment that we might use by that time in the game. Super duper realism is not required in that way for me because I don't know what we'll actually have by that time. I only care about realism in equipment enough to somewhat dislike a game for it when it is set in this day and age, where we know exactly what we're using.

let us all buy vbs for $1000

Railguns aren't very far-fetched if they figure out supercapacitors any time soon, but for the time being there's a reason Navy is the one researching them. Don't know, maybe they have a good enough handwave for them. [editline]28th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Cuel;39748882]let us all buy vbs for $1000[/QUOTE] 2nd47 should buy us all VBS

For fuck's sake Youtube's community is stupid. I was watching the ArmA 3 Lighting showcase, and some dude clearly is just trying to stirr shit up and knows what he's saying is bullshit says that Battlefield 3 is a better simulator than ArmA. And everyone took him seriously... But anyway, besides the railguns, I'm not worrying about any of the tech. It is a game, after all.

[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;39747800]You realise this is in the future, right? What the super elite spec ops guys use now, is gonna be regular by that time. Also the main character you plays is part of the 7th Infantry Division of the US Army. Wich is regular. And AK's and M4's most likely are not used at all anymore around 2030. I think everything is just fine how it is. [/QUOTE] Except super elite spec ops are still using..... M4s [editline]28th February 2013[/editline] They really are going for the cool factor, in and of itself im not really caring. The F2000 isnt a huge technical leap from an M4, not even a minor leap and is actually worse in certain regards. So it doesnt even make sense they would phase out M4s for a F2000s by 2030. You see what he means now? It was chosen purely because it looked cool, not because it was a reasonable choice for a future soldier concept.

Does it really matter ?

[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;39749296]Does it really matter ?[/QUOTE] "in and of itself im not really caring." It's a point of discussion. In a thread discussing ArmA III. Or you know, we could just have a boring 3 page thread of "looks good, can't wait".

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;39749255]Except super elite spec ops are still using..... M4s [editline]28th February 2013[/editline] They really are going for the cool factor, in and of itself im not really caring. The F2000 isnt a huge technical leap from an M4, not even a minor leap and is actually worse in certain regards. So it doesnt even make sense they would phase out M4s for a F2000s by 2030. You see what he means now? It was chosen purely because it looked cool, not because it was a reasonable choice for a future soldier concept.[/QUOTE] I meant in the sense of headgear, body armor and so forth. But like what ItsJustGuy said, does it really matter? They set it in the 2030's so they could have some creativity and didn't have to stick to what armies use these days all that much. I'm not saying we shouldn't debate about this, all I'm doing is explaining how I think of this.

[QUOTE=Cuel;39748882]let us all buy vbs for $1000[/QUOTE] And play DayZ on it

[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;39748256]I really don't see why are you taking this so seriously ? People will make mods for regular units and they will make regular guns.All this is, is just a fresh idea handed so you don't feel like playing Arma 2 with more lights and less lag.Someones probably gonna port the Arma 2 models over anyway, so don't expect much waiting.[/QUOTE] I didn't make a big deal out of it, go back and read my other post.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39747641]Umm... this is awkward. *railguns*[/QUOTE] Fuck yeah!

i just need one in my hand...

High res versions of those ST screenshots. [t]http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/a3_st_11_4.jpg[/t] [t]http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/a3_st_2_4.jpg[/t] [t]http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/a3_st_3_4.jpg[/t]

Man, you guys need to chill. I'd get sick of Arma if I had to use the same guns over and over again. It's good the devs are adding some variety to a game I have spent [I]far[/I] too many hours on. It would be a disservice if anything that they leave it how it was and just make it look prettier and feel smoother. Without that new content I may as well just be playing Arma 2 with an updated engine and I honestly would rather be able to use some sweet new guns instead. Sure, some of it might not be 'realistic' but I honestly couldn't care less because we've already done the presently realistic route with Arma 2 and somewhat with OA and it's only good to see that the devs are moving forward. Also, modders. [QUOTE=mastermaul;39749892]High res versions of those ST screenshots. [t]http://www.armaholic.com/datas/users/a3_st_11_4.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Those long mags look really dumb.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;39747641]Umm... this is awkward. [img]http://media.desura.com/images/groups/1/3/2074/arma3_screenshot_1107_009.jpg[/img] [img]http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/08/Arma3_screeenshot_PCGUS_01_exclusive.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Is it just me, or does that tank look really close to what the concept looks like for the cancelled Russian T-95 MBT? Except the main gun that is. [editline]28th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=HellSoldier;39749905]Those long mags look really dumb.[/QUOTE] You think everything looks dumb.

[QUOTE=HellSoldier;39749905]Those long mags look really dumb.[/QUOTE] The one with the bipod is the Automatic Rifle variant. Because it's ~too futuristic~ for belt fed guns. To be honest I think the MX actually looks pretty cool though. I love how most of them have AFGs, there hasn't been nearly enough AFG love in games yet.

[QUOTE=Killeen;39749961]Is it just me, or does that tank look really close to what the concept looks like for the cancelled Russian T-95 MBT? Except the main gun that is.[/QUOTE] no, the turret armour is slanted differently from T-95 but almost the same for T-90. Thus, those ARMA 3 tanks are most likely T-90's, some sort of modernized variant, [url=http://forum.net.hr/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Discussions.Components.Files/16/2022.1.jpg]maybe 3rd/4th generation reactive armor ones?[/url]