Page MenuHomeFeedback Tracker

Arma 2 maps in Arma 3
New, WishlistPublic

Description

There is truely a lot of good things in Arma 2 ...like maps (Chernarus , Padagorsk and others ) , great vehicles and aircrafts such as Apache , Ka-52 helicopters or original weapons M & AK series.
Please , make them available in Arma 3 by default ,like in combined operations.

  So we don't have to mess up with addons , which very often makes lots of problems online (modified files etc )

  Hope it's possible .

Thank you very much in advance for your hard work .

Details

Legacy ID
709917585
Severity
None
Resolution
Open
Reproducibility
Have Not Tried
Category
Feature Request
Steps To Reproduce

Event Timeline

ak47mm edited Steps To Reproduce. (Show Details)Jul 31 2013, 11:03 PM
ak47mm edited Additional Information. (Show Details)
ak47mm set Category to Feature Request.
ak47mm set Reproducibility to Have Not Tried.
ak47mm set Severity to None.
ak47mm set Resolution to Open.
ak47mm set Legacy ID to 709917585.May 7 2016, 3:46 PM
AD2001 added a subscriber: AD2001.May 7 2016, 3:46 PM

Do you want retextured maps, weapons, vehicles etc. or the same ones that were in Arma 2?

I would not care if they were the same from A2, as long as they were there and stuff like the weapons were customizable like the current ones.

Wouldn't this mean making pretty much new weapons?

Bohemia added a subscriber: Bohemia.May 7 2016, 3:46 PM

That or a LOT of reworking.

Not going to happen outside of mods.
Speaking of which, instead of those videos you should check this out, might be easier. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72ICC_VbfT4 Also takes advantage of more of Arma 3's upgrades.

NodUnit is probably right. I think I'm gonna downvote this one.

ak47mm added a subscriber: ak47mm.May 7 2016, 3:46 PM

I didn't ask remapping anything .....I don't mind if it's gona be good old arma 2 maps and guns

So...you don't want any attachments to be compatible with the guns? Okay.

Also, I think it wouldn't be fair to people who bought Arma 2 and Arma 3. If someone buys only Arma 3, they get all of the Arma 2 content, is that fair?

Don't get me wrong, I don't have neither Arma 2 nor OA, I'm new to the Arma series, but I really don't think it's fair.

seems to be a double
http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=7406

Status "reviewed" so there is some hope.

I think this one here will be closed soon.

Because of that and because I already voted in 7406
I do something i don't like in a bugtracker and add my personal opinion.
Anyway, here are my two cents:

I think this is an good feature request, if you use AIA you know that there are issues only BI can "fix".

I also would pay for an official DLC even if it's "just" the way ak47mm mentioned. (no new textures, etc)
I always would prefer official content than a Community-mod, just because:
The more people are "forced" to have it the more will use it (Server).

@AD2001
Bis could handle it like all other DLCs they made, free: with texture limits, no missions/campains etc. and full graphics and so on, for a payed DLC. Maybe BI can make the DLC unlock-able with the old ARMA1 and or Arma2 Serial number too.
There are many ways to solve this.

And in this case BI must help us anyway (take a look into the readme of AIA).

I just can speak for myself, I own OFP, ARMA, ARMA2, TOH (and TOM ;) ) and of course Arma3.
I won't care if some new "Arma3 people" would get a 3 or 5 years old or older game content, that i have paid for, for free.
Anyway, BI has to decide this.

It's also not needed to get any official DLC right now in Beta state or 2 weeks after release.

BI is focused to give us a great Arma3 game and should keep in mind to add all the stuff they already made, lets say, a year after the release.

I loved the ofp and Arma1 mods for Arma2 CO.
Honestly, we had these great mods but servers running/using this are/were very rare.

I hope BI just keeps it in mind to realize this huge ARMAVERSE .... someday.

for the last friking time:

this is a NEW GAME with NEW things, ArmA 1 players most likely also wanted their precious addons for ArmA 2, but htat couldn't happend, be glad that you have AiA, but it is NOT gonna happen

ak47mm added a comment.Aug 1 2013, 3:48 AM

+100000000000000000000000 to Corvus_X ....DAMN RIGHT MAN !!!!!!!

I can say ...I'm veteran of this game ...I own ALL editions .

I simply can't imaging Arma without good old maps , Hamvys or RPG 7. I want to see many different servers with different maps .
If you don't feel the same ....you don't love Arma as much as I do.

Opinion of new people is very important ....but I guess opinion of old player deserves attention to. We love this game ...we feel it.

If it's a suggestion meant for post release then it belongs more on the forum than in a place for feature request and bug pointing out in the BETA phase.

Dr Death you are right, its a new game with new things, like a new engine thats makes it easier to implant old Arma 2 stuff.

I am glad to have at least AIA but i would still prefer some official stuff.

CAA1 for Arma 2 was downloaded 42515 times - CWRearmed 2 (OFP) 20175 times. (just at armaholic.)

Why should I not tell BI to think about to make some dollars for an official "CAA1" and "CWR"?

AIA proved that it's already "easy" to implant it into A3 and AIA also proved that BI anyway has to do some more to make AIA more functional.

So, as friking often as it is necessary:

I would like to get an complete official Armavers into the best Arma engine that is currently available.
In Arma3, Arma4, Arma5 or what ever comes next!
(I never said I want it now!)

As much as i'm thankful to the people who made the CWR, CAA1, and now AIA, I also would pay for official stuff just to get a COMMUNITY WIDE STANDARD.

Until that happens I certainly stick to AIA and am glad to use it as a free mod.

NodUnit
This Feedback Tracker "Feature request" Section is the best way to tell BI what people want as a feature for the current game.
Via: Summary, Description and the votes
Before release but in my view also for later times like here where it is not necessary for the game but still a "nice to have" suggestion.
The "Master Ticket" has the status "reviewed" so it can't be that wrong.

But I agree a discussion belongs to the forum.

Normally I don't discuss here but as long as this is a double I don't care.

ak47mm
There is nothing i could add to your last post ;)

Maybe it's worth to search for or open a topic about this in the forum.
If you do so it would be nice to add the link here, as long as its open.

"Why should I not tell BI to think about to make some dollars for an official "CAA1" and "CWR"?"

because:

1- BIS is getting lazy nowdays, for some reason, some suspect is because of the mods doing most of the work to make the game interesting.

2- it would be hard as fuck to bring unfinished mods to ArmA 2/3 as officials, think about it, besides, the original creator would still want money.

No, DayZ ITS NOT an example of this being right, DayZ was "lucky" because Dean Hall is a high rank in the BIS team.

"AIA proved that it's already "easy" to implant it into A3 and AIA also proved that BI anyway has to do some more to make AIA more functional."

AiA would still be a waste for BIS if the modders can do the same in a little bit more time with a little bit less quality

"I would like to get an complete official Armavers into the best Arma engine that is currently available.
In Arma3, Arma4, Arma5 or what ever comes next!"

That was actually planned, in wich ArmA 1, VBS 2, ArmA 2, OA, and some elements from ArmA 3 would mix together for a mega game, the dream was too expensive and hard, so they ended up dividing the game into diferent relases.

"As much as i'm thankful to the people who made the CWR, CAA1, and now AIA, I also would pay for official stuff just to get a COMMUNITY WIDE STANDARD."

I wouldn't, most wouldn't, that's what made me end up hating most of the Flight Simualtors addons, they at first start charging you 5 bucks for a very requested pack of planes or vehicles of top quality and a bunch of years after they end up charging for a mod that allows you to use your 3D cockpit camera freely (i DID saw people charging mods for that in FSX).

letting people charge for mods will grow up until the mod market collapses, pretty much like the video game crash of the 80'

"Until that happens I certainly stick to AIA and am glad to use it as a free mod."

yeah... its not that its THAT hard to do what they did anyway, they just made a VERY small compatibility for copying addons from ArmA 2 to ArmA 3, not hard, they just barely touched something, i will truly be amazed when you can use ALL the features from ArmA 3 in at least Vanilla ArmA 2/OA units.

"This Feedback Tracker "Feature request" Section is the best way to tell BI what people want as a feature for the current game."

I know that was for NodUnit, but this is a FEEDBACK tracker, is both for suggestions and bug reporting, reporting bugs comes first, then very needed and easy to do suggestions, then the barely useful suggestions, and they never touch the "hard to do" suggestions.

"The "Master Ticket" has the status "reviewed" so it can't be that wrong."

Reviewed means a mod/Dev thinks the ticket is fine within the Feedback rules for reporting, doesn't mean its gonna get added or even that the BIS team is gonna think about it, it just means they may take it off from the shit pile of people actually suggesting fast reloading and dual wielding sometime.

AKM47mm:

I DO agree with you, but the people at BIS are growing tired and annoyed of doing the same "modern military" shit for the last years, and with todays market, that genre is coming to a halt, ArmA 3 its more of an experiment than an actual hard work for a relase, unlike morrowind.

if bis TRULY wants to make one big last splash before stopping with ArmA for some time, they could at least give us something more from VBS besides the Physx and the underwater diving...

@Dr_Death

"That was actually planned, in which ArmA 1, VBS 2, ArmA 2, OA, and some elements from ArmA 3 would mix together for a mega game, the dream was too expensive and hard, so they ended up dividing the game into different releases."

Any info on that? Articles or something?

read it a long time ago, i think that proyect was called "The game", not joking, that WAS the name, shitty one, i know, but there was just small info, most of their assets were reused on ArmA 1

@Dr Death

Lol , Wow, that you still remeber it ... Well it was the time shortly after Bi lost the Name "operation Flashpoint" to Codemasters. So they named it like this. "The Game" that rings a bell for me, so I googled a bit.
The project was called "Game 2" (I wont blame you Dr. it's amazing you still got it in mind ;) )

Ad2001 you can start your "google journey" about "Game 2" here:
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?145269-Artworks-from-GAME2-old-Bohemia-Interactive-project

Well, I'm too lazy to search for more and I haven't found anything in the first 5 pages of Google search. :D Thanks for that thread, anyway.

Ah game2..what a fun time that was. Gather round folks and I shall take you on a journey through the past, from a vague new beginning to the ashes of what never was, to what we know today as the Arma series.

Bohemia just released Operation Flashpoint Elite and were moving into the next era of what would be the beginning of their new franchise, Arma..amusingly enough called Arma Armed Assault, being built side by side with something called "Game 2".

This was back in 2005-2006, BI hadn't quite split with Codemasters just yet and a sequel called "Operation Flashpoint 2" was in the works, the cover art suggested a Vietnam theme. http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=3843

Information surfaced that indicated release date would be pushed back by two years http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=6929.

At this time relations between BI and CM dwindled, and they separated. BI kept the engine and CM the title for what would later literally be known as "Operation Flashpoint 2" aka the devils child if you read the BI forums at the time.

2005 was a quiet year, many people were curious and a few eager to see something about the new Operation Flashpoint, and at the time hype was relatively low because all we had to go on were a few interviews and the one logo image, up to that point literally no screenshots had been released. The best we could do was draw from OFP:E in an attempt to entertain ourselves of what "could be". Although official hype had not been enforced, the community gossiped and discussed back and forth of what could be.

Then late in the year someone notices the OFP2 website had gone down http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=8332 Much of the community wasn't sure what to make of it due to "Armed Assault" entering the scene not but two days later http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=8342 Was this the Operation Flashpoint 2? It looked nothing like vietnam! And bore an exact replication of Operation Flashpoint Elite.

News came of Codemasters publishing OFP2 without BIS http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=8352 which puzzled many. News began to flow about "Operation Flashpoint 2" but at the time nobody knew what it was exactly http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=8354 finally an announcement came that CM would in fact be publishing an Operation Flashpoint without BIS http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=8416

At last news of "Operation Flashpoint 2" aka Dragon Rising came to light, in 2007, and with the title taken from them BI had to come up with a new name so they temporarily called it "Game 2".

Screenshots of "Game 2" surfaces two days after, showing a vast difference between OFP:e http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=8351 the soldiers were the same but the vehicles were new and more modern, the landscape was more lush and detailed than it had ever been, hopes were raising.

More screenshots were released, the community scanning them with eagle eyes to hunt for new features, leading to the one sticking out the most being the destructble house. http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=8749 By this point all we knew was Operation Flashpoit Cold War Crisis, the game where "destruction" was paper crumbling, and then Operation Flashpoint Elite which was black charring, we hadn't seen anything like it at this point.

Armed Assault and Game 2 were being developed side by side at the time, with reviews and magazines publishing screenshots of both http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=9301 in the meantime we watched with mixed opinions, applause and heavy critique (seriously nothing has changed) as Armed Assault evolved

http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=9546
http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=9618
http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=9674
http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=9739

Alongside a different form of media outlet was created under the guise "William Porter", a man who would blog about his duty and life in Armed Assault. http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=9694

By this point Game 2 was but speculation, perhaps Armed Assault WAS Game 2..it was certainly looking better than anything we had seen up to this point, and yet the mystery game came back just as vague as ever in a magazine page. http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=9748 "Two years development left", was it really being worked on side by side with Armed Assault? There was much confusion.

Time went on, Armed Assault flourished in ways we hadn't expected.
http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=9831
http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=9875 a very exciting time, screenshots surfacing of vehicles with guns, new animations, jogging with AT launchers, double gunned blackhawks and more.

http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=10279 At last announcement came of Armed Assault and it's release, Game 2 slowly faded into history, it no longer surfaced in magazines, screenshots, press release or interviews.

By the way, amazing how far night lighting has come yeah? http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=10498

Anyway...Arma Armed Assault was released and many patches later released in North America under Arma Combat Operations. Queens Gambit expansion followed and before long Arma 2 was upon us.. Many speculate that game 2 was Arma 2 all along, due to the exact same assets and similarities in environment, but there were certain features seen in the game 2 screenshots that never surfaced. More dynamically destroyable structures, a wheel rolling across the ground which suggested a form of physics, and a few more.

Perhaps Arma 2 was Game 2, perhaps Arma 3 is Game 2..perhaps Game 2 was a technical dream rendered unacheivable for a myriad of reasons...whatever the case, it had some influence on the development on these games one way or another.

To me the importance of each Arma game is innovation..although the developers may not do it the way we want, there is no denying that they have improved upon each game from its release and through it's life, with so many features that the list would take a great deal of space... and to me personally there is no reason to professionally bring old to new unless the old can take advantage of what the new can do.

nice story, perhaps Game 2 was just a try to port VBS 2 assets to Arma, wich proved unsuccefull

oh, and i'd fucking pay with my kidney to see an offitial OFP in the 'nam era, but i suspect it was most likely a game that follow up the campaign using the thing like in wargame, in wich the WWIII DID started

@NodUnit

What a heart warming story. Anyway, the thing I'm interested in the most is the destruction system. There was a screenshot of it. Was it too performance costly?

Oh, BI, please tell me, where is the destruction system?

there was a good one in ArmA 3 alpha at i think...... nah, i dont remember what build, it was too old, before the sniper pack, i do remember it was a resource hog

You can see a bit of the destruction with a tank in one of the links. There is another article..somewhere that shows a more step by step example, and ain image in the desert with a humvee tire rolling, but I cannot find it.

I believe the devs commented in these some time ago, something about taxing for clients to share the information over the server or something like that.

sort of having to monthly pay to keep servers running to the devs too? or a monthly payment in general

AD2001 added a comment.Aug 2 2013, 2:49 PM

Why would they do that?

HA, i dont know, BIS even if i think its a great dev company its known for making greedy choices

"I also would pay for an official DLC even if it's "just" the way ak47mm mentioned. (no new textures, etc)
I always would prefer official content than a Community-mod, just because:
The more people are "forced" to have it the more will use it (Server)."

Corvus, what the fuck is that?

would you pay just for an DLC that makes the 3D clouds and the ArmA 3 weather inside ArmA 2 maps when besides that you can just port it to ArmA 3?

And why do you want more people to be forced to use them? why dont we just make everyone use every addon in existence then?

or better, let BIS disable every Addon content for ArmA, you know, JUST LIKE EA

you can already have all the arma 2 maps, vehicles and weapons in arma 3 with the All In Arma (AIA) addon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72ICC_VbfT4

This is getting damn annoying now how everyone keeps saying "Oh you can do this and this with mods so the DEV's do not need to worry" sometimes the features people ask for should be in the game already without having to mod like shooting out of vehicles and other times like the people I play with, trying to convince them to get more mods is just a hassle and it would be nice if they simply brought the map over anyway.

"Corvus, what the fuck is that?"

At first: My decision!
Do you blame the people who decide to buy the developer version of A3?
Just because some people feel the way that they want to support BI?
Well I won't. (No, I didn't bought it, just the standard Version)
Who does not want to pay for BI-DLCs, can use the DLC "Lite" Version like they did for the A2 DLCs.

"And why do you want more people to be forced to use them? why dont we just make everyone use every addon in existence then?"

Never want them force to USE nor did i wrote it.
I wrote "The more people are "forced" to HAVE it the more will use it (Server)." That should already explains why I want that everybody has it.
But for you i try to specify it:

  1. The Quotes around forced are there for a reason ,
  2. If you have something you don't have to search for, dl, update etc... could bring you easier to a point where you at least test it.

3.And most important:
Do you were angry after the A2-patches which "forced" you to install BAF-,PMC- and ACR-"LITE" ? Really?
4.Some people like to have Takistan as an official map (in this Feedbacktracker)for A3.
I guess because of its desert nature it might be not so "resourse hungry" so it's much smoother to play online, maybe their PCs are week too. (I personal don't like Takistan that much)
My opinion is: As long as it is part of a Mod the servers for that would be much less as it would be if everybody has it on default (as a DLC "lite").At least no one can chose it if a server is empty and the AIA mod is not installed on it. If it's in A3 by default....

"or better, let BIS disable every Addon content for ArmA, you know, JUST LIKE EA"

Ouch, why that?
That is 100% the opposite what i want I don't want to disable Addons all I want is: more ALREADY EXISTING, OFFICIAL CONTENT on DEFAULT.
I never said nor indicated anything like it.
Remember: "...Until that happens I certainly stick to AIA and am glad to use it as a free mod.."
It seems i forgot to thank the moder/s for his/their hard work.
Honestly: To all moder, mapdesigner, scripter and texture artist:
Thank you! you made Arma to what it is. A great infinitively growing game.

BUT the content i want as DLC is official BI content, so why should i don't like to have them as an official DLC?

F++k EA

Another reason why I (and BI too!) don't want to disable Addons
is simply the reason that Bi takes good Ideas and put them into their games.
For example: "Warfare" included since A1.
Just because the CTI maps in OFP, done by the community, were that popular.

aaand anotherone: There were some RP-Maps (City Life, Sahrani-Life later Chernarus Life) you where able to save your stuff and stats in CL.
Now BI develops DAYZ what is from a technical view similar to CL (Saving stats, saving content even if you log out...)

You want use Addons, use them. I will do it too.
For some things I have no other options e.g. BW-mod. Not everyone who plays Arma2 is german, so I never would have the Idea to request such a mod as an official DLC.

BUT Official BI stuff that is more and more technical possible to get into the new Game engine, must not be an unofficial Addon.
In my view It's BIs job to include it proper. ... "In Arma3, Arma4, Arma5 or what ever comes next!" ....
Oh, and did i mentioned that I would pay them for this job?

EDIT:
As I said before.
Maybe it's worth to search for or open a topic about this in the forum.
If you do so it would be nice to add the link here, as long as its open.

i think a better idea is for the Dev's to make a "arma2 classic map pack" purchasable on steam, since there is a ton of work involved to bring the maps to Arma3 standards and the dev's need to be compensated for this.

I don't really see the point in retexturing the maps. I don't understand why some people love the maps so much. :P

this is not about buying DLC, but about just them existing, i didn't bought no Sleeping Dogs DLC, that doesn't mean i wont comply about most of them being shit, same thing here, if you ask me, ACR was a below average DLC, but i would hate, even if no one buys it, that BIS sells a DLC making the exact same thing they did before for a new price, EVEN if its remade, if its not remade, then i would see a shit storm coming into BIS offices.

Its just that people have to start to analize companies for their actions, not just for "wich game is good and wich one isn't"

ak47mm added a comment.Aug 3 2013, 6:42 AM

2 AD2001 ...Your question , is answer . You don't love it. You don't care as much as we do.It is not just maps....it's places ...it's memoirs . That's it .

But that is exactly what a memory is, something of the past be it good or bad. Sometimes you have to move on, if BI makes an official DLC of Arma content then great, if not then there are alternatives...and if that doesn't work then just enjoy what was.

it will be grat to play ArmA2 maps with ArmA3 graphic effects.

With the effects or with new map textures?