Apparently Day Z players are not the only ones sick of Arma's engine

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

Also, can you link the document you quote? I only ask, because that is not what I linked in the original post. It was a PC gamer article that contained none of that text. Which is kind of funny, telling me to read what I am talking about, when you link something else entirely.

The quoted text came from the actual product proposal synopsis that is linked directly from the article you posted.

So not only have you demonstrated that you are not at all familiar with the contents of the proposal, but you didn't even finish reading the fucking article itself before posting that the Army was "sick" of the engine and looking for a "complete replacement." Both claims which are clearly your own invention. And you don't see how you're being sensational? Really?

Sit down and re-read the article, then read the proposal - the one I asked you to read three separate times during our discussion. I'm sorry I didn't provide a link; I assumed you knew what I was talking about since you're the one who posted the goddamn thing in the first place.

When you're done, come back here and we can maybe talk about what it actually says instead of what you pulled out of the first two paragraphs of the PC Gamer piece.

Another interesting tidbit:

DISCLAIMER: This notice does not constitute an invitation for bids or a Request for Proposal (RFP) and is not a commitment by the U.S. Government to procure subject products. No funds are available to pay for preparation of responses to this notification. The Government will use the information received to assist in the development of the GFT Flagship requirements.

Which to me seems to imply they're not even looking to contract a new developer, but rather just gather data which they will probably take back to Bohemia before starting the next phase of development on VBS2.

Anyway, I think I'm done here.

Edited August 1, 2012 by ZedsDeadBaby

[Bad Science 23]

The quoted text came from the actual product proposal synopsis that is linked directly from the article you posted.

So not only have you demonstrated that you are not at all familiar with the contents of the proposal, but you didn't even finish reading the fucking article itself before posting that the Army was "sick" of the engine and looking for a "complete replacement." Both claims which are clearly your own invention. And you don't see how you're being sensational? Really?

Sit down and re-read the article, then read the proposal - the one I asked you to read three separate times during our discussion. I'm sorry I didn't provide a link; I assumed you knew what I was talking about since you're the one who posted the goddamn thing in the first place.

When you're done, come back here and we can maybe talk about what it actually says instead of what you pulled out of the first two paragraphs of the PC Gamer piece.

Another interesting tidbit:

DISCLAIMER: This notice does not constitute an invitation for bids or a Request for Proposal (RFP) and is not a commitment by the U.S. Government to procure subject products. No funds are available to pay for preparation of responses to this notification. The Government will use the information received to assist in the development of the GFT Flagship requirements.

Which to me seems to imply they're not even looking to contract a new developer, but rather just gather data which they will probably take back to Bohemia before starting the next phase of development on VBS2.

Anyway, I think I'm done here.

So no link then?

And I checked the article links, they do not lead to that document you quote. They lead to some government website with links to many other places. Please provide a direct link or keep your discussion within the context of the PC Gamer article that this discussion is based on.

I did find this quote from Kotaku in a link from the article I originally linked that you might find interesting (since we are having fun using quotes from other places than the OP):

"The new game will replace Bohemia Interactive's Virtual Battlespace 2 as the flagship game in its Games for Training program."

That kind of sounds like a replacement to me.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Bad Science

[sunnz 24]

Is CE3 can offer the realism, them BI are fucked, CE 3 is IMO more optimised, offers much better visuals and gameplay is a lot smoother and fluid.

[Bad Science 23]

Is CE3 can offer the realism, them BI are fucked, CE 3 is IMO more optimised, offers much better visuals and gameplay is a lot smoother and fluid.

I agree that it does play alot better. Time will tell if it can deliver the features the military demands.