Jump to content

TheNatureRoy

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TheNatureRoy

  1. There are a ton of things in the field RIGHT NOW that were not possible 10 years ago, let alone in the 60s. The SCAR is a result of numerous trial and error prototypes and concepts. It didn't take 10 years to make the scar, it took 10 years of looking through the candidates to finally settle and adopt a the new weapon.

    Exactly! It took ten years simply due to bureaucratic reasons. Now consider that same bureaucratic molasses must be overcome in addition to the not-insignificant technological breakthroughs required for these items when attempting to imagine when they might actually be fielded. These technologies aren't anywhere close to being fashioned in a form ready for use in the field, and even when they are, it will still take years before they are actually in use outside of the lab.

    Right now they don't even work properly. When they do, they must not only work properly, but be durable, long-lasting, reliable, and effective. And even at that point, you have to cut through red tape. To think something is going to go from 'wouldn't it be cool if...' to the field in a handful of years is nuts.

    The F-22 was on paper in 1980. It first flew as a prototype in 1990. It didn't enter active service until 2005.

  2. Predicting the future is an impossible task, and things you expect to be coming end up hopelessly delayed or are never adequately developed (flying cars), while things you could have never predicted pop up and change the world in relatively quick fashion (GPS).

    That said, if I had to guess, exoskeletons might be fielded by ground troops in 20-25 years or so. Stand-alone active camo like that portrayed in the game is probably closer to 40-60 years away.

    Of course nano-tech advancements might be a complete game-changer and switch things up in ways we can't even comprehend.

    Ghost Recon: Future Soldier ('the sci-fi game') might be cool, but it's a complete joke to try to argue that any of this stuff will be on the field by 2020. Consider how much different the battlefield is today compared with ten years ago (not all that much). The 2020 they are portraying is about as far removed from 2010 as 2010 is from 1960.

    It took almost ten years to design, develop, approve, and field a freakin assault rifle (FN SCAR)!

  3. Actually, kleaneasy, you seem to be missing the point: There is a huge difference between the OICW (an amalmagation of existing, well-known, tried and tested technology*), and a wearable cloaking system. That's like saying that adding the F-35 to a flight simulator is the same as adding the Millennium Falcon "because it's all future".

    (*=Brass cartridge ammo from the 19th century, airburst fuzs from the 20th century and - and I'm being generous here, timewise - laser and computer technology from the 1970's.)

    Exactly. You summed it up perfectly. You have to draw a line somewhere, and for my personal tastes, Ubisoft is drawing the line waaaaaay too far away from believable.

    When you're talking about 'future tech' there is a massive range of what you could be referring to -- from items that are essentially completely designed and functional and just waiting to go into full-scale production and can be expected to be fielded in the next 5-10 years (which is where I would prefer the line be drawn), to technology that is actually being developed and shows some promise but is a long, long way away from being developed enough to be fielded (HULC exoskeletons for example), to technology that more or less exists but needs significant breakthroughs before it could be shaped in a form that could be fielded by infantry (laser weaponry for example) to concepts that are theoretically possible but requiring of massive advancements before being fielded (personal cloaking devices that are more than just projector and camera tricks).

    The fact that this game appears to be using the really crazy stuff as its calling card is unfortunate. It makes it more akin to HALO or Crysis (which also base all their future technology on real-world concepts) to me than what I would prefer from Ghost Recon.

    I guess to me it's a question of whether it's more military or sci-fi. I mean technically MW2 is military sci-fi, and so is HALO and the movie Aliens, but I'd consider MW2 'military' and HALO and Aliens 'sci-fi' if I had to assign them one or the other. And right now, I'd say GR:FS is more 'sci-fi' than 'military' too. And maybe it's going to be a completely kick-ass sci-fi game -- I hope so -- but I was hoping more for a military experience from GR.

  4. Anyone fancy doing a RIP Ghost Recon sig?

    Make sure its the right size for UBIs anal boards.

    You might want to remember sigs/avatars designed to create/support hate groups arnt allowed on ubi

    Yeh and that sillyness won't be tolerate here either.

    Seriously the "not buying" crowd are really over reacting a tad, this is a very short promo piece and putting too much emphasis on what is imparted in a few seconds is not a good idea. Even the cloaking thing, this is tech that is probably well underway in DARPA labs and there is a probablility that it will be used in some form, come the actual time that FS is set in.

    I guess I'm saying, don't say now something that someone might quote back to you in a few months. :thumbsup:

    @ Paladin, come on dude, you know better than that. RIP after viewing a 1 minute video? Yes, folks really have gotten stuck in a negativity rut, but I didn't expect you to fall in quite so soon!

    Hey, I might eventually get into and actually enjoy the game. I can enjoy fanciful 'near future' sci-fi -- Crysis is cool in its own way. Perhaps GR:FS will be too, but I'll have to change my perspective and view it more as a Crysis-like game when what I've really been hoping for is something more realistically rooted in the real world from the new Ghost Recon. Oh well.

  5. Show me a for-real personal cloaking device prototype and I'll concede your point. Until then, if I want a bloody cloaking device I'll play bloody Crysis.

    EDIT: I was going to post something on the Ubi forums, but it as already gone beyond stupid.

    One of the guys on the GR forums posted these links

    Its worth noting the dates of the videos as well

    Yes, these are the parlor tricks I was talking about. Doing this with a projector and camera is far removed from a standalone active camo cloak system.

  6. Peace I think you raise a good point.

    A lot of people seem to focus on the future aspect of GRAW and now this title, yet they seem to forget GR was a title based in the future with future weapons.

    There are limits to this. Including a prototype assault rifle is a lot different than featuring exoskeletons and active camouflage.

    Even when they're real??

    If a game set in the future is meant to be realistic why would it not include real weaponry?

    It depends on how you define 'real'. Because personal active camo technology appears to be quite a ways off from anything that could actually be fielded. Right now what's being shown is closer to a parlor trick than something that will have real-world applications in the foreseeable future.

    And something much more grounded -- the HULC exoskeleton -- is likely a long way off from actually being fielded as well, at least by ground troops, and likely in a very different form.

    But beyond that, I fear exactly how Ubisoft will use these 'real' technologies in the game. Will it be like GRAW, where they take something 'real' and use it as an excuse for implementing it in an extremely unrealistic, fancied manner? For example, what will the exoskeletons in GR:FS actually do? Will they merely allow you to hike around all day without becoming as fatigued? I really doubt that because that's not very sexy. Or will they allow you to run fast and jump high without being a huge hindrance in other ways? Sure, these sorts of exoskeletons will likely come into existence... in 30 or 40 years probably.

    Even today 'real' and 'prototype' technologies -- even those based on well-sorted and relatively simple technologies -- take a long time to work their way into active service. SOCOM decided to open up bidding for a new assault rifle nearly a decade ago and the first models are just now being used into the real world.

    High-tech stuff, even designed with 100% intention of making them viable, real-world assets, take decades. I'm not talking DARPA-style brainstorming projects. I'm talking things like fighter jets. The F-15 replacement originally started to be designed in 1981. The F-22 went into active service just a couple years ago, and that's with an actual working prototype that was up in the air 15 years earlier.

    Granted, that's not exactly the same thing, but the point is it takes many, many years for even relatively well understood technologies to make it out onto the field. But ground-breaking stuff that only kinda works today and in a way that isn't anywhere near ready for prime-time? We're talking quite a long ways down the road.

    Where do you want to draw the line? The military has been working on laser weaponry for a long time. Are they anywhere close to creating hand-held laser rifles? No, but they are probably not much further off than supersuit exoskeletons or active camo. Do you want laser guns in Ghost Recon: Future Soldier? And remember, just about everything in HALO or Crysis is loosely rooted in real world prototypes as well. The 'loosely' should be the key, but the same can be said for GRAW, and it seems likely that GR:FS, will be even looser in this respect than its predecessor.

  7. Peace I think you raise a good point.

    A lot of people seem to focus on the future aspect of GRAW and now this title, yet they seem to forget GR was a title based in the future with future weapons.

    There are limits to this. Including a prototype assault rifle is a lot different than featuring exoskeletons and active camouflage.

  8. In light of recent developments...

    If I came to you and said, "We have room to make one and only one more change. What should it be?", what would your answer be?
    Limit the weaponry, field gear, and electronics to that which is currently found in RW SOF armories/inventories, and leave the prototype? bells and whistles to follow on expansions/packs...assuming of course, that those pipe dreams are ever actually fielded, and that the game merits expansion.

    I 100% agree with this although sadly I fear it's a request that will not be heeded.

    At the very least, limit the effectiveness of prototype equipment to what can actually be expected. For example, it seems the HULC exoskeleton might make the game. If it does, it better not make you run faster or jump higher or anything silly like that because in terms of mobility the HULC will be a hindrance, not a help, outside of its specific role of taking some of the load off of soldiers carrying heavy loadouts over long distances (in other words, the kind of things you don't do in video games).

    Tied to that, scale back the technology from GRAW to more believable near-future tech (No targeting diamonds, no readouts telling you what % damage something has taken, etc.).

×
×
  • Create New...