Realistic handling & suspension on wheeled vehicles

[Bazul14 10]

Realistic suspension would help. I remember seeing that Moskvich picture:

That should complement the current sliding and drifting on most vehicles that do not have a tank's suspension.

[Pyronick 21]

This needs a lot more work than just suspensions.

You'll need friction (understeer, oversteer) in the form of tyre dynamics, differential simulation, transmission (gears and their relation to cornering), torque curves, etc.

Just improving suspensions would only improve the esthetics of the game.

[MissionCreep 12]

Plus if vehicle performance was realistic, huge areas of the map would be inaccessible to most vehicles. Traction, soft surfaces, ground clearance would come into play. Imagine making evasive maneuvers under fire offroad and blowing out your suspension in the middle of a killzone. I know its supposed to be a simulation, but as a player you'd be pissed for sure.

[Cyteless 10]

Would be very nice to see, but not something I'd expect for a while. We'll have to see what BIS are up to ;)

[Pyronick 21]

Plus if vehicle performance was realistic, huge areas of the map would be inaccessible to most vehicles. Traction, soft surfaces, ground clearance would come into play. Imagine making evasive maneuvers under fire offroad and blowing out your suspension in the middle of a killzone. I know its supposed to be a simulation, but as a player you'd be pissed for sure.

You'd surely be able to move faster than the current situation.

There aren't enough ditches in ArmA 2 maps to break an axle or the undercarriage, unless you are doing 90 mph/120kph and hit a ditch.

Only accelerating on soft terrain in road cars would be very slow. Maybe even impossible uphill.

[Pulverizer 1]

I think the physics engine already simulates bumpiness of terrain types. Even when the grid is 50 meters or whatever the vehicles bounce on certain terrain. Like a repeating bump-map pattern but for physics instead of gfx.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

So basically you want cars that lean when they turn? IMO, that's not very realistic. Like a lot of things, I think this is one of those things that is overdramatized in movies and games these days.

It also does nothing to enhance the gameplay. This isn't a racing game or anything.

[-=Grunt=- 10]

The guy in the car kinda looks like Vin Diesel lol.

And yeah, I agree that a better vehicle suspension and traction system would be nice... Oh and I hope BIS fixes the ATV in the next patch.

EDIT: Hitting a small bump and your tires blowing up or your vehicle flipping into the air isn't really nice.

[wipman 1]

Hi, i've the impression that many if not most of the vehicles on the ArmA2 don't have their real weight and i think that this could have something to do with the vehicles handling ingame; aside of the fact that some vehicles seem to have chewing gum suspensions. Let's C ya

[Defunkt 431]

This isn't a racing game or anything.

Agreed, it's slightly tedious to see endless threads by people who I can only assume suppose their $50 entitled them to DCS: Black Shark, Falcon 4.0, Steel Beasts Pro and now rFactor in a single box. ArmA couldn't exist if it had to provide such fidelity across its entire simulation (price would go up and audience would go down) and evaluated in that context the wheeled vehicle handling is already very well done IMO. Fortunately and very importantly BIS have also provided us with a ton of modability to flesh out the parts we might wish were more detailed.

[Bazul14 10]

Yo, there is VBS2 that probably has all what you said and a lot more. But some implementations in arma2 would not be bad either, especially when they can be moved from VBS2 with only some modifications. As for cars, well they can go a lot of places, even without the ability of climbing 80* hills. Actually, changing that would make players think twice about the routes they take. It is not like they must do that or that. Making a game harder and more realistic does not automatically mean making it less fun.

[coopr 10]

Yo, there is VBS2 that probably has all what you said and a lot more. But some implementations in arma2 would not be bad either, especially when they can be moved from VBS2 with only some modifications. As for cars, well they can go a lot of places, even without the ability of climbing 80* hills. Actually, changing that would make players think twice about the routes they take. It is not like they must do that or that. Making a game harder and more realistic does not automatically mean making it less fun.

+1 :)

[stk2008 14]

"Making a game harder and more realistic does not automatically mean making it less fun."

I like this and agree this is what ARMA is all about to me any ways a simulation.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Yo, there is VBS2 that probably has all what you said and a lot more. But some implementations in arma2 would not be bad either, especially when they can be moved from VBS2 with only some modifications.

This has been discussed to death. It's a poor justification to say that VBS features would be easily implemented in ArmA 2. Honestly, if you want all of the bells and whistles of VBS2 then you should expect to pay that kind of price.

[Pulverizer 1]

Well they did improve aircraft physics quite a bit from Flashpoint to Arma after all, so this isn't asking for the impossible. Similar upgrade could be done to land vehicles.

No one's asking for hardcore racing simulation driving physics. Just get the fucking basics about right, so that driving would be fun and functional instead of horrible and surreal.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Just get the fucking basics about right, so that driving would be fun and functional instead of horrible and surreal.

That's the problem. Nobody will ever agree on what the "basics" are, and everyone will have their own (correct or not) ideas of the level of fidelity that should be in the game. For example, I personally feel that the driving is pretty good as it is. There is room for slight improvement, but there's nothing fundementally flawed as you would seem to suggest.

[Pulverizer 1]

I would consider the almost complete disregard of grip/friction a fundamental flaw. It just feels very, very off. Like you're on some imaginary magnetic rails, instead of being only loosely connected to the earth's surface via small partitions of four rubber wheels.

[max power 21]

Let's also consider that while OFP: DR was a game with an engine designed with racing games in mind, that their vehicle physics were also quite hilarious. Perhaps once a game gets past a certain complexity, there's a wall you hit in terms of cycles you can spend.

[seamus 10]

Its not the wheeled vehicles that get on my nerves its the tracked vehicles,why oh why when doin down a hill fast,when turning do they slide all over the place,espically tanks,and i would think tanks would go up a hill alot faster than they do in arma

[Pulverizer 1]

Let's also consider that while OFP: DR was a game with an engine designed with racing games in mind, that their vehicle physics were also quite hilarious. Perhaps once a game gets past a certain complexity, there's a wall you hit in terms of cycles you can spend.

But it had to also run on consoles. DR ran at a rock solid 60 fps on my modest PC with everything maxed at 1920x1200. Ie, plenty of headroom for some more complicated driving physics.

There were driving games with satisfactory driving in the mid-90's when CPU's were like 50 times slower in instructions per second.

[Bazul14 10]

No, tanks are fine, especially when driving uphill. You won't get a min30ton tank(T55) to go up a 50* slope at 20kmph. It is simply impossible. I think that the current 7-13kmph is too fast too. I mean if they would go that fast, their gearboxes would break after a couple hours of use.

As for everything else, I did not ask for the VBS2 to be made into ARMA2. Just some basics, like normal physics, armor penetration and damage.

[John1000 10]

As said before ;I rather be in a submarine than in a car:Even if I can go anywhere in a car,I`ll pick a sub sence it wont be able to go places that are impossable for it and the car wont be drivable there really in real life.Not to speak of the stupid wheel,3 turns

to and impossable to turn accuretly or park where you want it-a huge let down when i first see it.

[killslim 10]

I don't want Arma to become the next need for speed, however the car handling is abysmal. Stray a single inch from the road and you drop 90% of your speed.

[Leon86 13]

Let's also consider that while OFP: DR was a game with an engine designed with racing games in mind, that their vehicle physics were also quite hilarious. Perhaps once a game gets past a certain complexity, there's a wall you hit in terms of cycles you can spend.

well, most racing games have hilarious physics too. good physics should be perfectly possible, especially for a human driven vehicle, just look at a game like richard burns rally, that only needed a pentium III and is a great sim.

we'll see what physX does to the vehicles, I have high hopes.

[Opticalsnare 12]

Would be nice to have slightly better handling. Tanks are somewhat annoying the AI refuse to use them correctly, driving full speed and coming to a complete stop by doing some crazy spin when stopping and then spinning on the spot doing some crazy wtf driving skills. Vehicles with wheels are alittle less crazy but just dumb, AI getting stuck because they cannot work out how to do a 3 point turn and get stuck in an endless cycle of forward back forward back... Not only that but there seems to a be very low gravity vehicles can jump insane distances and seem to float over rough terrain. Theres also an enormous lag on the steering for wheeled vehicles.

Better Handling for vehicles definitely, and no it doesnt have to be like rfactor or gtr2 or any other racing simulation out-there but should be improved to be somewhat more comfortable to use.