Cloak and HULC - Likely [Real world] kit by 2020?

[AlienShogun]

Western countries are based on idealogy not geographically location. I thought everyone knew that. Its a Cold War term.

Last reply to you,

Western Ideology is different than geography that doesn't make one or the other non existent.

Turkey is hardly western from an ideological standpoint, nor are many African nations, Asian and middle eastern nations that also would observe caution from killing civilians.

Some of you people really need to get some education. The west isn't "better" than the east. It all depends on which nation you are dealing with and what leadership is in charge.

[AlienShogun]

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 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.

Yeah, don't get what I said skewed. If you look through the previous posts in this thread you will see that I highly doubt the tech will see the light of day.

The SCAR wasn't held back by bureaucracy it was held back because of R&D, you don't want to rush into making new tech for your armies without testing. The SCAR itself is the result of other prototypes/tests that were not the scar failing or needing refining. The SCAR is the end result.

And Paladin it's good that you posted that link. Now go in and read it, because the very 1st line proves my point.

[TheNatureRoy]

There are a ton of things in the field RIGHT NOW that were not possible 10 years ago, let alone in the 60s.

Can you provide some examples?

[AlienShogun]

FBCB2 in its current function, High fidelity thermal sights, High fidelity night vision sights, combat UAVs, and assortment of other stuff I can't go into because it is still classified secret.

[Rocky]

I'm done talking with you as well on this forum, where are the people who actually know what they are talking about when they decide to get into a conversation?

I hate wasting my time with people who act like they know what is going on, or ignorantly think they know what is going on.

Welcome to the Internet

[AlienShogun]

Yeah, yeah I should know better.

[TheNatureRoy]

FBCB2 in its current function, High fidelity thermal sights, High fidelity night vision sights, combat UAVs, and assortment of other stuff I can't go into because it is still classified secret.

But aren't these just improvements on technologies that have existed and been fielded for many years? Active camo is a completely different ballgame.

[AlienShogun]

But aren't these just improvements on technologies that have existed and been fielded for many years? Active camo is a completely different ballgame.

Some are yes, like the improvements on night vision (been around since Vietnam) but you could argue that reactive camo is in the same ballpark since it is another take on stealth/camo. In fact reactive camo works on the theory/basis of existing technology.

The FBCB2 system and a newer version that isn't the FBCB2 that I can't discuss is pretty much a brand new tech when it was made. Same with combat UAVs (unmanned drones).

There are others (like I said) that are completely new, not a lot obviously but there are some. Unfortunately I cannot mention them.

[Sgt. Atoa]

Here we go again lol

[Pave Low]

Here we go again lol

No we do not

Everybody needs to take a step back for a moment and relax

I know it's disappointing not to get "GR but just on a new engine" but we now just need to look at this game as a new completely separate game and judge if it will be fun to play,

if you decide it's not then don't buy it simple

This is just a computer game, no need for any drama

[Sgt. Atoa]

I problably won't so I'm good and is not because of the gizmos but the DRM

Edited February 11, 2010 by Sgt. Atoa

[WhiteKnight77]

Ubi should remove the Ghost Recon name from the title so it can be judged as it's own game.

[Sgt. Atoa]

WhiteKnight,

Ubi can keep the name really but what about a new tactical first person shooter in present time franchise for us?

I don't care about the name but gameplay

Edited February 11, 2010 by Sgt. Atoa

[Pave Low]

Ubi should remove the Ghost Recon name from the title so it can be judged as it's own game.

Yes, they should have done that with the AW's too (GRIN would have had a much easier time of it)

But they wont, UBI will milk the name long passed the very last drop (doing the same with "Rainbow Six")

and each time they do the true fans will groan and say "Hey! THAT isn't GR/R6!"

but what about a new tactical first person shooter in present time

Apparently we are "a niche market"

Tactical FPS market "too narrow" ! by an Ubi Dev

[Sgt. Atoa]

Ubi should remove the Ghost Recon name from the title so it can be judged as it's own game.

Yes, they should have done that with the AW's too (GRIN would have had a much easier time of it)

But they wont, UBI will milk the name long passed the very last drop (doing the same with "Rainbow Six")

and each time they do the true fans will groan and say "Hey! THAT isn't GR/R6!"

but what about a new tactical first person shooter in present time

Apparently we are "a niche market"

Tactical FPS market "too narrow" ! by an Ubi Dev

I guess the ball is in BIS courtyard then

[WhiteKnight77]

Don't get me started on him.

[AlienShogun]

Ubi should remove the Ghost Recon name from the title so it can be judged as it's own game.

Why? I am a fan of the ghost recon universe and the time line. They may change the game mechanics but it's still cool to see the story progress.

Apparently we are "a niche market"

Tactical FPS market "too narrow" ! by an Ubi Dev

Well, at least there is Arma2 and operation flashpoint DR (to a lesser extent)

Anyway I have faith that Predator will give the "old fans" what they are hoping for,(albeit a bit watered down) while Future Soldier is more for the "GRAW" crowd.

Here's a thought, what if Predator is a remake of the original? Hmm.

Edited February 11, 2010 by AlienShogun

[Rocky]

I'm really not sold on the Predator idea AlienShogun. Mainly because in contradiction to many news reports elsewhere, Ubisoft has not trademarked Ghost Recon Predator. At least not last time I looked.

[AlienShogun]

I'm really not sold on the Predator idea AlienShogun. Mainly because in contradiction to many news reports elsewhere, Ubisoft has not trademarked Ghost Recon Predator. At least not last time I looked.

Well, it may not be called predator, or it may be a "code name" so I will keep referring to it as that, but I'm confident in 2 projects.

Plus there is this, or was that debunked as well?

Link to official forum with Ubi tagged as owning predator name.

Edited February 11, 2010 by AlienShogun

[NoQuarter]

but what about a new tactical first person shooter in present time franchise for us?

That wouldn't one up, let alone compete with the content, multi, and buzz of the title that they are gunning for, or move a similar number of copies.

Apparently we are "a niche market" Tactical FPS market "too narrow" ! by an Ubi Dev

I still wonder what happened to him after letting that out.

Maybe there is something else to take into account, something that went unsaid, and that is the sensitivity factor of basing the title too closely on present times/events -or reality. If any group decides to protest the game or its content, all they have to do is point to the Cloak and say "See...See...it's just a game" and inoculate themselves from further attention.

____

Pave, you're right, those numbers are surprising.

[Rocky]

Plus there is this, or was that debunked as well?

Link to official forum with Ubi tagged as owning predator name.

But that's a classification, not a trademark. And it's in Australia only, whatever that means lol.

[Sho0ter_XyZ]

Havent you guys seen The Men Who stare at Goats? Ghost are level 5 at invisibility.

They are the best at Cloud bursting. lol

[Lightspeed]

after doing a bit of googling im starting to like this cloaking idea as long as its plausible which it appears to be - will promote recon as opposed to run n gun.

the HULC sounds ok too - shouldnt affect gameplay too much - just the ability to carry more weapons or armor i guess - again if its real and if Lockheed is building it, it will become a reality at some point i would expect, then bring it on.

as long as its tactical and realistic and recon then lets do it.

[thales100]

im starting to like this cloaking idea as long as its plausible which it appears to be - will promote recon as opposed to run n gun.

...

just the ability to carry more weapons or armor i guess

Yep, just like in Crysis.

[Lightspeed]

well im not after a crysis but i have Arma2 and Op Arrowhead so lets have some good modern Ghost Recon

and i know its OT but had some great Arma2 the other nite - me and another chap stealthed our way in about 500 metres into enemy territory to knock out a radio tower and secure a base.

i mean lets face it - you've got a hundred GR mods if you want [GR], you've got Arma2, and soon GR:FS

good times all round!!