Realism of tanks...

[dayglow 2]

The way I see it is that this guy comes in and states that he doesn't like the way the tanks work and could be more realistic, fine, nothing wrong with that, infact I agree, could be more realistic. But now Tex [uSMC] stated that if you use realistic tatics and place your men and fight the battles properly it can be more realistic. Well buddy here takes it personally and goes off a bit. This I don't like. There's nothing wrong with disussing aspects of the game, but to slag it and come in here with an attitude is wrong. People should pay a little respect to BIS, they busted their balls to make one of the most unique battlefield games ever, trying to fit everything in and pretty well succeeded. Flying and vehicles are a little arcade, but it has never been done before like this. I don't know about you, but this constant whining does a game no good. I've seen flightsim boards where the developers where active members of the community and really supported their amazing products, only to be driven away by the constant whining of the people. I don't want to see that here.

There is nothing wrong with discussing how it could be more realistic, debate how hard it would to implement features, cpu cycles to do stuff, etc, but I hate whining.

COLINMAN

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

I agree with the topic poster..... perhaps there will be a tank tactics MOD sometime?

[unpronouncable 0]

im in a bit of a rush right now so i'll try and make this quick... I've never went personal on anyone here.. how can I? THIS IS A FORUM ON THE INTERNET! how can anyone take anything personal!? unless you are 9 year old girls or something... really... are you guys joking?

And i still dont see why you have to defend the game so damn hard.. these developers get paid for for making this game, correct?!? its not like they go crying like you guys just did when someone doesnt like every aspect of their game, right?

I'm sorry you take everything i say personal... i didnt mean to be insulting... but i'm even more sorry you hade to discuss that here instead of discussing what the topic is about.. i really hope you have a life outside of this forum... it could be good for you.. maybe a real life conflict will help you understand how unimportant this really is... oh.. was this insulting? i'm really extremely sorry...

btw.. thanks everyone giving me tips on these realism mod's.. i'll give it a try... and no, i dont take any of this personal.

[S_Z 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (amos m @ May 19 2002,04:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What's ofp internals?<span id='postcolor'>

This is OFP internals. There you can download a "new" island which is great for tank battles. Its a part of the National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin.

[amos m 0]

Ta. Thanx sz.

Lol @ unpronouncable. Right on. Are you guys seriously insulted by this?

And I looked for those reality mods on that site. I couldn't find them. Could you tell us where they're located?

[bn880 5]

Well, I agree with unpronouncable on ALL POINTS! He did not insult anyone either.

And sure I think the game would be more fun with more realistic tank combat. Most people that buy this game are into realism anyway, so I think the majority of OFP buyers would appreciate more and more realism in future patches.

unpronouncable don't forget: real tanks have real brakes too, not like OFP where you seem to accelerate in reverse to stop.

currently you have to pull off a rally move in the M1A1 to get it stopped quickly (I don't think that would be wise for the tracks in real life!

[nyles 11]

I fully agree to the initial post. it wasn't disrespectful in any way. i think bis can handle costructive criticism quiet well and don't need to rely on some knights in shiny armour.

here is one of the earlier topics by Gimbal, which pretty much covers almost all of your aspects. this topic should be brought back to life. I hope that a lot of the mentioned features found their way into the resistance .plan.

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=10551

[unpronouncable 0]

thanks alot for the support guys.. sorry this post went out of subject.. hopefully there will be tank combat changes made in future patches...

[Legion5 0]

well it wouldnt kill BSI to improve the tank AI and make the damage and armor models a 'littel' more realistic.

Just make the tank spacing a bit wider make the shock after a hit a bit longer and make the tank engins a bit more powerfull, that easy.

[110 0]

Is it possible to make a mod where you can order your tank-or helicopter-to space them selves further apart? Could use the Radio or place a break after formation line and have something like:

__

9. loose

0. tight

You could however at least have your fellow tank commanders "Advance" using the movement command window to pace them further from you. How about "Advance left/right" too.

Tank (Helo) Correction list:

1. Increase Tank AI for all Crew

2. Increase uphill speed

3. Increase Radar/tracking implementation for further shots

4. Increase options for formation for the sake of spacing

5. Increase Reload time for Gunner to about 6 seconds

6. Increase Command distance so spaced-out team mates wont be "away" and ask you where you are all the time

Most of this could be done with an add-on if not done already. Maf's Tanks (which are the best ) have faster reload times for the gunner and i like the little "Hup" after each reload to let you know its good to go.

110-who enjoys stealing a tank in a "stealth" mission and ending it quicker

[arkadeyevich 0]

It is easy to make a script that makes the tanks keep a custom formation using some trigonometry. I made one to command a squad, but it shoudn't be hard to implement for tanks.

[ham 0]

Here's a realistic tank pack

All tanks are made much more realistic. Based on the Aaron Ash's realistic tanks.

Try it out.

[whisperFFW06 0]

I'm absolutely not a tank expert, but did you try to use the "flank left", "flank right", "go ahead" and "stay back" commands?

If I remember well, these commands make the unit go right/left/ahead/back by 50m each time the command is issued. You can then create loose formation for tanks pretty easily (btw, I didn't test it hard, it could bring some issues during move, like avoiding trees & forests, etc...)

Next, to enhance AI behaviour, scripts could be used. Someone simulated realistics sniper behaviour with scripting, it could be made for tanks.

Problem for BIS is of another level. As stated above, if you increase tank realism, you'll have to do it for helos, planes, and there is many things to do on these subjects too. And this is a lot of work. They have implemented the minimum to use tank in the game (to create a whole battlefield), not to simulate tank tasks perfectly. OFP is currently essentially a soldier sim, not a tank nor a helo sim. Don't cry on BIS if they don't build a better tank sim right now, because they have alot to do, and they do it, unlike many other game companies who create a product, and then completely forget it and go on.

There is enhancement to be done on the tank part, it will probably be done. But let them time to do it.

[bn880 5]

From my other post:

Here is some data on the M1A1's behaviour.

http://members.rogers.com/ct-hru/foster_aft.pdf

Calculated 400m (1/4mile) time for an M1A1 26.992 Sec (or 27s) at 50.498 MPH (or 50MPH).

I'm off to test the M1A1 on pavement and grass now.

[dayglow 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (whisperFFW06 @ May 23 2002,07:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Problem for BIS is of another level. As stated above, if you increase tank realism, you'll have to do it for helos, planes, and there is many things to do on these subjects too. And this is a lot of work. They have implemented the minimum to use tank in the game (to create a whole battlefield), not to simulate tank tasks perfectly. OFP is currently essentially a soldier sim, not a tank nor a helo sim. Don't cry on BIS if they don't build a better tank sim right now, because they have alot to do, and they do it, unlike many other game companies who create a product, and then completely forget it and go on.

There is enhancement to be done on the tank part, it will probably be done. But let them time to do it.<span id='postcolor'>

I think that is probably the problem. OFP code base is probably started from the idea of a soldier sim and build up from that. Basic AI routines probably would need a major rewrite and such since they are most likely based in the foot soldier code. economy of ai routines and such are probably necessary to be able to do a sim like this with so many elements. Could you imagine a dedicated sim to each part of the overall game? It would take forever. The electronic battle field has been tried before and companies like Spectrum Holobyte and Mircopose have gone out of business because of the money spend. Even the Janes World War thing died and it was just different flightsims comming together.

COLINMAN

[bn880 5]

Hmm,

the M1A1 in 1.46 is within 2 seconds of a real M1A1 when it comes to 400m runs on the runway, and it's right on, on grass.

AVG Runway 400m run -> 25.6s at 77kph (should be 27s)

AVG Grass 400m run -> 27.2s at 69.7kp

The BRDM is way too fast on the runway, beats most real performance cars with a time of 13.55 at 130kph.

On the grass it's still fast, 19.75 seconds at 78.8kph

The jeep is rather fast in the game, 4.4s 0-100 on runway.

In conclusion, M1A1 acceleration and top speed is accurate on flat ground, maybe a tiny bit fast. Other vehicles may need help.

BTW the 'M1A1 - Real' from the .cz site has the same acceleration and top speed.

[bn880 5]

4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DayGlow @ May 23 2002,164)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that is probably the problem. OFP code base is probably started from the idea of a soldier sim and build up from that. Basic AI routines probably would need a major rewrite and such since they are most likely based in the foot soldier code. economy of ai routines and such are probably necessary to be able to do a sim like this with so many elements. Could you imagine a dedicated sim to each part of the overall game? It would take forever. The electronic battle field has been tried before and companies like Spectrum Holobyte and Mircopose have gone out of business because of the money spend. Even the Janes World War thing died and it was just different flightsims comming together.

COLINMAN<span id='postcolor'>

I don't believe so, I have seen the development of the OFP engine from years ago and I have made various missions myself, I think the engine is prepared well enough to simulate just about anything without major changes.

It might be possible to make the tanks more realistic without major modification to other aspects. It depends on what people are asking for. For instance, making tanks stop faster should be quite easy. And yet even if it is easy, it would probably take a long time and would need to be tested.

It may not be very hard but it does take a long time either way.

Adding features to the AI... I would guess that takes the most time, depending on how well the code has been prepared for modification and addition of decisions.

Just think, all this has to be done in some form for a Marine simulator.

[Hardliner 0]

How about making it so the tanks take less hits to the rear? Could not that be done in the config file? That real Abrams still takes 4 hits to all sides and some said before that one SABOT could do it real damage when hit right in its rear. From what I have read and heard the M1 in the rear is nowhere as strong as it is in the front. Even an RPG could damage it, aimed well enough. I would not know about the crew would they suffer more injury from a rear hit too? Ammo and engine all there.

[dayglow 2]

Ok, I'm not talking about the properties of the actual vehicles, ie armor, speed, manouvrability, but the underlying code that controls the unit behaviour. It depends how many hooks they left in the ai code (I'm not a programmer so all this is speculation, etc), but probably the very base was the soldiers and they moved up from there. If they had a serprate code base for every part of the game, it would have never released because it would have took too long. I mean the game already was in development for 3years? (not sure on that number).

Let's take a tank. If we impliment realistic optics and balistic computers etc, then the ai needs to be able to use them and then line of sight, tatics, etc all come into play. A dedicated program like Steel Beasts does this, but it would take enoughter year to impliment it into the OFP code.

Scripts and such really help, people can control how the ai acts, but a script is just that, rote action that they perform with some randomness added, not real ai behaviour.

As for different damage to different parts ie less armour to the rear, I don't know if that can be in the engine. If the engine is based on a global damage system, then a per-pixel hit system would have to be added. Then again I'm not sure how it works, so it may be able which would be great. Imagine being on a high ledge and fire a RPG into the weaker top armour on a tank, it probably would do some damage.

COLINMAN

[Peekee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (amos m @ May 19 2002,16:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ta. Thanx sz.

Lol @ unpronouncable. Right on. Are you guys seriously insulted by this?

And I looked for those reality mods on that site. I couldn't find them. Could you tell us where they're located?<span id='postcolor'>

Lol, the temptation to make a stupid over the top flaming post about how all of you guys being insulted by each other really pisses me off. And how as such you are all a bunch of ****less ******s. But then sarcasm will kill you be careful.

[dayglow 2]

Does this last post make any sense at all? I've gone over it like 10 times and I have no idea what that guy is trying to say. Btw you can say fuck and shit all you want in this forum, nothing gets censored

COLINMAN

[bn880 5]

Sure it makes sense, you just have to decide what kind of sense.

I pretty much agree with your previous e-mail DayGlow, and even if you are not a programmer you seem to have the same view, obviously you don't have to be a programmer to know what's going on.

I basically wonder how much BIS is willing to upgrade for us before they make us buy Operation (2nd edition).

Most companies would have already dumped the forums and gone to their next version.

I know that the BIS developers had to consider realism vs. fun before they released the game, and I'm a realism nut. I would take a fully realistic chopper over the one in the game any day.

GIVE ME 500 KEYS TO CONFIGURE!

Either way I wish they could release 2 versions of the game, 1 in the current state of realism, 2 in the highest state of realism they got to. (well something like that, to please the unreal players or novice players, and one to please simulation buffs and veterans of the game)

I should make another thread for this....

[Kermit 0]

Or they could just have different realism options, like they already do.  Problem is, they don't allow for as much realism as some of us would like.

I fly in real life, or did (just a dozen or so flight hours, I'll resume my lessons when I get another job).  Flying is the one part about Flashpoint I cannot stand.  Even when I use the joystick, it just doesn't cut it.  The A-10 in the game can't do anything near a ninety degree bank without losing altitude at an incredible pace.  I've seen the real plane do much better than that.  Also, the helicopters have unrealistic handling.  It's as if they all weigh several dozen tons.  They take too long to accelerate and slow down and turn and such.

In Real Life ™, the thirty millimeter Avenger cannon on the A-10 can destroy a tank in one or two shots, I believe.  It definitely doesn't take as much as it does in Operation Flashpoint. Those Depleted Uranium armor piercing rounds are pretty powerful.  Same goes for the twenty millemeter Vulcan cannon rounds and the miniguns on the chopper, only obviously they won't be quite as effective as the Avenger cannon.

As for the tanks, which after all is what this topic is about, they seem fine to me with the exceptions of the AI, loading time, and armor.  That and I don't thinkgoing uphill would be quite as difficult.

Don't get me wrong from this criticism.  I love Operation Flashpoint, it is my favorite first person shooter and the only realistic one.  I would be very willing to pay for a new Operation Flashpoint in which the developers started out from scratch.  I do think they could have spent less effort on the "gameplay will degrade over a period of time on an illegitimate copy" thing, and paid more attention to flight models.  That goes especially for the planes.  The choppers don't need quite as much help.

[Edit: Spelling]

[dayglow 2]

I agree with you on that. I got into computer gaming through flight sims and they are my first love. To have realistic flight physics within this game would be godsend.

As for weapon performance my guess is that everything is play-balanced, especially for multiplayer. I wish that the weapon systems were more representive of their RL counterparts, no matter how out of balance they are. They were designed for that, to rule the battle field. Some would say, " how much fun would that be, have a A10 on airsupport and it rips a Russian tank plattoon to shreds, there's no challange in that." Well for that the game should have more AA assets and a IAD screen. Could you imagine that, an realistic battle field like that.

But realistically I don't know how that could be implimented within the program. It's basically what OFP2 would be. The intergraded battlefield sim has been the dream of many developers, but never really happened until OFP, but they made a lot of sacrifices in realism and level of modelling to do this. I guess I will take this because it's actully here.

COLINMAN