BlackAlpha

I totally agree.

You can try lowering the model detail to the lowest. Test it on a map with a lot of trees. Then bump up the model detail until you hit the point that is not acceptable for you. If you point the camera towards the outside of the map, then the frames jump up and it feels smooth. If you point towards the center of the map, it drops down. This causes a lot of fluctuations. As for moving the camera with the mouse vs keyboard. I don't think there's a performance difference between the mouse and keyboard. It's just that with the mouse movement there appears to be some sort of acceleration and really horrible mouse lag going on that makes it feel pretty bad. At some points it's silky smooth (mainly when looking towards the outside of the map, and at others (like at 7 seconds) it's really bad performance, you were skipping frames like crazy. Personally, I'd recommend you lower the model detail, that mostly fixed it for me.

For me it's the same in BS. BS with trees runs the same as SF2 with trees. BS without trees runs the same as SF2 without trees. But anyway, it's why I always play with the tree trunk mode to improve the performance. If you want to play with trees, then you'll need to drop the model detail. Just compare the lowest model detail setting to the highest, the difference is night and day.

I've compared the training level to the same training level in BS and the performance is exactly the same. If you don't put the model detail on the lowest or near lowest setting, then your FPS will tank. I find it disappointing how in Black Sea I played with a GTX 680 and the performance was crap if you didn't put the model detail to the lowest. And now I'm playing BS and SF2 with a GTX 1080 and the performance is exactly the same. From what I remember, SF1 had similar issues. There just seems to be something in the engine that destroys the performance, no matter what hardware you run on it. I'm still hoping that one day they'll do real engine updates (not just these minor patches).

We still don't know how it will look like in reality. Concept versions often differ to the real life final versions.

Especially if you put them on the new border between Ukrainian and Russian/DNR/LNR forces. Keep in mind that putting UN troops between Ukrainian and Russian/DNR/LNR forces would be a win for Russia and a loss for Ukraine. You don't want Chinese troops standing there, enforcing Russia's victory... It also can't be America or Russia for obvious reasons... I think it has to be a combination of mixed European and other non-European countries. Just NATO countries (under UN flag obviously) could work too. But looking at how much fighting there's going on, I doubt the UN will want to participate in that. Realistically speaking, a UN mission will most likely get vetoed by the usual suspects because it doesn't serve their agenda (US/Russia). By the way, you cannot put UN forces only on the Ukrainian/Russian border. It would invalidate all the fighting done in the last 12 months and it would magically make Ukraine win and Russia lose. So, Russia would veto that. You have to make a compromise of some kind if you don't want Russia/US to veto it. Russia doesn't want to lose the ground they've gained and the West/Ukraine doesn't want Russia to gain more ground.

Gotcha, no more Arma3 vs CM... Wait a second, you're cheating!

Well, you came with a snarky comment saying that we should stop discussing whatever we were discussing, and so I sarcastically asked you what you think we should be discussing. The question still stands: What do you think the topic should be?

Forgive me your highness. Which subject would you like us, your lowly servants, to discuss next?

Why not? Somebody was wondering how realistic Arma is. You then came in and wanted to proof that CM has a much more realistic damage model and is therefore a lot more realistic in general. And the rest is history...

That has nothing to do with which game is more realistic... I think now you are just trying to bash Arma for no reason. Sure, Arma has problems with AI in urban areas. But CM has problems with the AI as well. Go play against the AI in an urban area in CM, they are mindless zombies then. Arma has similar issues. In the open, the AI fares much better, that counts for both games. However, one thing to keep in mind is that Arma has a dynamic AI option that can make strategic decisions on the fly, while CM AI is mostly static/scripted. This does not necessarily make Arma more or less realistic, though. CM is not meant to be modded. Arma is mainly a multiplayer (co-op) game that is meant to be modded. Different type of games.

Look, I'm not saying CM is not realistic. All I'm saying is that Arma is more detailed in some aspects. If you want to go full realism in the artillery department, you can use mods in which a player needs to call in a proper fire mission, then another player on the other end of the line inputs that information into a firing computer, and then sends that information to a player manning a weapon who then fires, then the first player adjusts fire and that loop continues. That's a much deeper simulation than CM does, in which it loosely simulates artillery by playing around with some numbers behind the scene. Although CM is really good, it's not the most realistic game out there...

About the realism argument... Speaking as someone who has played Arma in a realistic fashion since like Flashpoint, Combat Mission has the upper hand in a few areas, but Arma certainly allows for a more accurate simulation than CM does. The thing with Arma is that the developers aim to create a good technical platform on which the fans can create good mods. So, if you don't use mods, then you are missing out and Arma may seem a bit lacking. But if you play Arma 3 with some of the latest realism related mods, than it's the most detailed simulation that can still be classified as a game. But yeah, comparing which game is better can't really be done because they are of different genres. Each game is good for its genre. And they are both some pretty hardcore tactical simulations. By the way, Arma 3's popularity can be thanked to it's modding scene. Something to keep in mind is that not everyone plays that game for it's military simulation possibilities. A lot of things can be simulated in that game and as such some people only play roleplaying mods/missions in which people pretend Arma 3 is like real life and they go around making money, eating, working, etc. See here: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=225716527

Well, there is some armor simulation being done (not every hit will result in a kill, depends on where you hit and such), but it is more simplified than CM in that aspect. On the other hand, Arma simulates a lot of things that CM does not. For instance, does Combat Mission have a realistic radio simulation with signals that can bounce off the environment and such? Arma does. Arma also has a more accurate join ops simulation because you can have an actual person doing all the different roles, which comes with its logistical, planning and command issues. Artillery is a lot more awesome, making it so you have to adjust fire and such. You can even use something like this to make that task easier (it has a fairly realistic simulation of how it works in real life to find the range difference between two points): http://www.vectronix.ch/html/en/products/handheld_equipment/rangefinders/vector_rangefinder_binoculars/vector_iv_the_all-purpose_infantry_device I could go on and on... To compare to Combat Mission. Radio simulation is more simplified. Artillery magically falls out of the sky. The different units have an all-seeing eye because the player controls them all directly, resulting in some pretty unrealistic scenarios. Etc, etc. In Combat Mission's defense, the scope of the game is much more limited, while Arma allows you to simulate every single thing.

Did you try Arma? That's one of the best tactical combat simulators out there. With a few mods, it's a lot more realistic than Combat Mission even.

You're right. I'm probably misremembering it. But it was a lighter Brigade Combat Team of sorts.

One thing to keep in mind is that in Iraq the Stryker brigades got their asses kicked when they ran into tanks and couldn't get out of the way fast enough. All the maneuverability and sensors won't save you when there's a tougher enemy standing right in front of you. And APS is not going to stop a 125mm shell coming your way.

So, are jets effective at taking out helicopters, and more specifically, helicopters armed with air to air missiles?

But wouldn't a helicopter be able to slip by those sensors? And even if it doesn't slip by the sensors, a sensor won't kill the helicopter, right? You still need a weapon to kill it.

When was the last time you saw a tactical nuke being used? You probably don't know. When was the last time rocket artillery was used? Probably five minutes ago...

That may be, but I like to think that these days we are better organized and the western coalition has kept involving itself in all sorts of wars, so we do have the experience on how to work together properly.

A solution yes, for now (firing two projectiles almost at the same time), but as you can see, missile based weapons become bigger and bigger to try to keep up with tank defenses. First they had to become bigger to be able to penetrate the armor. Then they had to become bigger to be able to do fancy maneuvers in the air. Now they become bigger to try to fire off more missiles at the same time. How much bigger can they still get? Not much. But in the future they will need to be able to do even more fancy stuff to be able to reliably bypass APS... As soon as APS acquires the ability to reliably destroy two incoming rockets/missiles, infantry based anti tank weapons will become near useless because you can't really improve them further - a person simply won't be able to carry it. Then, you'd have to use the really heavy missiles and fire them in volleys exactly at the same time. Meanwhile, vehicle mounted missiles will become much larger or they will have to fire bigger volleys to be able to penetrate APS defenses, which means they will be able to carry less ammo and reloading will become a huge pain in the butt.

I don't think the US is not prepared. They probably simply don't need more anti air units. Who will they use the anti air units against? NATO is not going to invade Russia or China or any country that has a considerable air presence. In the event Russia or China attacks the West (one way or another, like for example in Ukraine), then there's a good chance NATO forces will rally under the same banner. This means, the US can count on the support of other countries who can provide them with better short range anti air units. Remember that NATO is more than just the US... Other NATO countries may not have as large of an army as the US, but some of them do have some really good stuff.

Maybe the US expects other NATO countries to provide anti air units when needed, ie. against Russia?

I see people talk about jets a lot. What about helicopters? What if Russia decides to use a lot of helicopters?