You will be able to fly jets like the su-26, A10 warthogh and helicopters in BF3
And I don't think il2 modelles any air over the vehicles.

Dude seriously wtf!!!!

Clod models a hell of a lot of things, you clearly have no understanding of the detail in a simulator if you are trying to compare it to the arcady battlefield style of flying a jet with basically no physics in a map that would be flooded by a spiders piss puddle. The jets in battlefield 2 had speeds closer to that of a ww1 fighter than a jet so that you could fly them on the tiny maps lol

Exactly.

The biggest map in Arma II Operation Arrowhead is about 11 miles on a side.

That's too small for WW2 air operations, unless you are just doing touch and goes, for training.

I really enjoyed the E3 trailer.
It seems very immersive.
The multiplayer is going to be awesome!
I have thoroughly enjoyed the Battlefield series as it is more realistic than Call of Duty.

Realistic???

There is a huge difference between realistic environment and those games.
Also between CoD and those games, not as huge but still big.

I will certainly never claim to have a good understanding of graphical rendering, and most things someone like John Carmack talks about goes right over my head (:() but I've got a fairly good handle of what made fps games 'tick' so to speak, by having experience in designing some custom Crysis levels.

Draw distance can murder framerates. Whenever I had framerate issues when doing custom levels, I reduced the draw distance by slapping a big, fat mountain in the way.
It's no surprise that most fps games channel the player down narrow funnelways...ususally disguised as mountains paths or canyons or corridors. Even 'open ended' Crysis was full of these tricks.

3D vegetation also murders framerates. Even something relatively simple and innocent as grass can kill frames if packed too densly.

And guess what? Most simulators have ample of both! :)
Why could Crysis 1 not run on consoles, but Crysis 2 runs fine on consoles?
Taking out the large draw distances and the ample vegetation makes a huge difference.

Wow, some highstrung people here defending CoD.

Obviously they are two different games, and it would be nice if CoD looked as good as BF3 which I'm sure is the only thing the OP meant by the comparison. There really isn't any need to go into detail about the differences as they're blindingly obvious, but to rag on a game because it "isn't a sim" is ridiculous. It's a battlefield game, jack of all trades, master of none!

On BF3 itself, it does look fantastic, and I spent many hours playing BF1942, the Desert Combat mod, both in and out of clans during multiplayer and the same with BF2, and more recently BFBC2. They're great games, some of the best fun I've ever had on the PC. I remember spending hours trying to perfect flying the littlebird in the DC mod for 1942. When you get that horrendous flight model under control and can actually fly close to the ground between rows of buildings you feel really satisfied with your efforts.

Frustration perhaps.

All CloD needs is a good art director.
Someone who understands how to trick our minds into seeing reality where there is none.


Those people are rare as hen's teeth and probably working for the big bucks.

CloD is trying it the hyperrealistic way now and that's not working.

have you tried Project reality mod?

IF it wasnt for PR BF" would jsut suck for me..... my dream is a PR for BF3, wich is unlikable becosue they are working on PR for arma II :(

This island in ArmA3 is only about 22x22 kilometers (475sq.km island on a 900sq.km map)but this already makes it impossible to have as many scripted cinematic effects as in BF or Call of Duty with their tiny maps. And this is rendering capabilities of 2012 game (wip).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz9mI...tailpage#t=37s

What is the size of the channel map in CloD?