Vehicles, how will they be improved?

[Rak 0]

One lacking area always bothered me in ArmA series is the lack of features/attention on vehicles. Especially ground vehicles.

Yes they did look nice and mostly sounded nice, but they lacked features and polish. I've been following these forums since ArmA released and before every release these suggestions were repatedly brought up:

• FCS for tanks and APC's: Not something ultra-complex like NonWonderDog's FCS mod for ArmA, but a simple system imitating the common FCS. eg. lase the target, let the computer compute the lead, elevation etc. and shoot. I believe ACE2 has a system like this and it works well. Though, it came very late after release.
  
• Armor calculation system: I remember the heated debates about this since before ArmA's release. Simply put; introduce a "penetration calculation" layer on top of the current hit-point based system, or eliminate it altogether. Add areas inside the tank, so when a shot penetrates it hits these areas to create specific damage to components.
  
• Improved vehicle handling: Has been a major immersion-killer ever since. Drifting tanks, tanks not being able to get up simple slopes while other vehicles even speeding up going a slope. Vehicles turning on a dime very fast etc.
  
• Vehicle AI: Currently vehicle AI doesn't act reliably in combat, turning it's back against enemy, not concealing itself, getting stuck especially inside cities(tanks inside cities anyone? Simply armageddon). The gunner AI trying to shoot while the driver AI fooling around. It feels like the vehicle AI is fighting with each other, rather than working together.
  Also commanding a vehicle full of AI is really hard, constantly having to tell AI what to do(even shoot), not being able to instruct the AI to switch ammunition types easily(try to tell them to switch from AP to HE, you can't).
  
• Remove Tab-Lock: Another major immersion killer repeatedly brought up. Basically remove all the "tab-lock" mechanism from the game. Implement simple FCS's instead. We all know how people can ruin PvP games getting a helicopter and just spamming "tab-shoot" killing everyone. This also makes tanking really hard, because tab mechanism makes it really easy to deal with armor.
  

I really hope BIS considers these features for ArmA 3 this time. Yes, modders try to improve these areas after release but it's up to individuals while it should have been a part of the game from the start. Also, why make them invent the wheel every time a new BIS game gets released? Features like these are major selling points for developers(for example Red Orchestra developers constantly boast about their "most realistic in FPS" armored combat in every interview) and should help the sales a lot.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Rak

[gonza 8]

I love Arma but for vehicle I hope that :

Chopper will be more robust in collisions (slow speed).

Reworked the physic and the driving system of bicycle and dirt bike (horrible).

Reworked collision system (lose a car wheel on a little bush is not realistic).

Reworked a little bit the driving system for cars (not realistic).

Reworked system to enter and exit vehicle (more instinctive like in others games one touch and that all)

Edited May 26, 2011 by gonza

[neokika 62]

Hey,

Physical simulation & improved animations - take advantage of PhysXâ„¢ supporting the vehicle simulation, in-game interactions and the revamped animation system.

I guess that means PhysX will control all vehicle simulation including ground and objects collision. Im pretty sure that even the driving will be completly different because of that.

_neo_

[maddogx 13]

No more rubber vehicles bouncing off rocks into the sky. Yay! :D

[ozzbik 71]

No more rubber vehicles bouncing off rocks into the sky. Yay! :D

Real mass/weight system by Physx

[gonza 8]

what I see about physx on youtube is just particle (fog, spark, wind...) effects but not collisions

I m wrong ?

[maddogx 13]

what I see about physx on youtube is just particle (fog, spark, wind...) effects but not collisions

I m wrong ?

No, you're right. Like all good physics engines, PhysX does not do collisions. We're doomed!

[gonza 8]

ok so I don't have found the good video.

have you an example video about realistic vehicle collision and physX ?

I trust what I see ;-)

I play a lot to Rfactor and on this game collision system is realistic but I don't know if there is a physic engine like physX

Edited May 26, 2011 by gonza

[NeMeSiS 11]

ok so I don't have found the good video.

have you an example video about realistic vehicle collision and physX ?

I trust what I see ;-)

And play it yourself: http://77.55.66.239/vdemo/

First hit when googling 'vehicle PhysX'. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Well, that is the fasted accelerating car i have ever seen. Still pretty good for something build by an amateur.

[gonza 8]

for me, physx is client side because client musts have a physX card

no problem for particle but for collisions...

I think that collision system is on server because the collision must be the same on all player...

That what I thing that physx is just for particle

I'm probably wrong but for me it's logic (Im an noob on physics engines)

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

FCS is game-breaking, not going to happen. In ACE2 all of my engagements took place 2.5+ km out, beyond the fog of war of the servers in question (Warfare w/ view distance of '4 km').

Realistic?

Yes.

Does it account for balance and provide fun for the people on the other side of the receiving end of my 125 mm T-90 MBT turret?

No.

[Mr. Charles 22]

OA had already a FCS lite. Further improvements over the 1 shot dead system would balance it out and it is your fault, if you drive along in a T-34 or T-55.

[wolfbite 8]

FCS isnt nesasarilly game breaking... They could limit the engagement range on it...

I'm really hoping for an armour system overhaul.

Wont PhysX Be more about how the vehicle interacts with the environment? Hopefully be able to load vehicles into C-130's etc?

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

OA had already a FCS lite.

That is correct, though you can't experience the full effects of it on an area with such topography, there's no room for tank engagements, like on Chernarus: you can see all the way to Pogorevka-Kabanino from the hills west of Guglovo.

And you can't adjust MG elevation to required range, which certainly pisses off infantry at 1,000 m. :cc:

Further improvements over the 1 shot dead system would balance it out and it is your fault, if you drive along in a T-34 or T-55.

Damn, it's been a long time since I've played with ACE2, I totally forgot that it features new armour penetration ballistics/damage model and the chance of a SABOT glancing off against certain parts of MBTs.

You better pack some Javs, if FCS comes to Limnos. :cc:

Wont PhysX Be more about how the vehicle interacts with the environment? Hopefully be able to load vehicles into C-130's etc?

Yesss, just drive up the ramp - how would they be anchored in place, though?

[Maio 293]

Check the 2 videos on this page to see how Physx works with the RV engine , in this case VBS 2 .

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

Check the 2 videos on this page to see how Physx works with the RV engine , in this case VBS 2 .

First vid: independent suspension on the HMMWV. Second one: Check out the weight REdistribution, upon the change of the angle/height of the forklift!!! :D:eek:

Edited May 26, 2011 by Iroquois Pliskin

[Rak 0]

FCS is game-breaking, not going to happen. In ACE2 all of my engagements took place 2.5+ km out, beyond the fog of war of the servers in question (Warfare w/ view distance of '4 km').

Realistic?

Yes.

Does it account for balance and provide fun for the people on the other side of the receiving end of my 125 mm T-90 MBT turret?

No.

I think you're mistaking it with tab-locking. FCS DOES prevent those things from happening because you have to manually aim lock and work the systems.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

I think you're mistaking it with tab-locking. FCS DOES prevent those things from happening because you have to manually aim lock and work the systems.

TAB-lock doesn't have to be displayed, even on Expert @ ACE2, you just tell your AI gunner to 2- target that scumbag, and if you're really lazy, then 3-1. ;)

[columdrum 11]

Well just "normal" physics for the vehicles where things like blow a wheel on a bush like already said, or :

(i know it's arma 1 but physics aren't better in arma2... hahaha)doesn't happen would be enough. Some targeting system beter that "tab locking" and and armour system similar to ACE2 one would be apreciated too.

[Iroquois Pliskin 0]

k6DeWUTA4EQ

(i know it's arma 1 but physics aren't better in arma2... hahaha)

ROFL. :D I remember this video, BMP-2s are amphibious - no vehicles were harmed in the ambush.

:D

[dmarkwick 261]

Yesss, just drive up the ramp - how would they be anchored in place, though?

I've seen VBS2 footage of vehicles being driven into a C-130 and there was a "lockdown" option. Sort of like an instant AttachTo command.

[CyclonicTuna 87]

I just hope the overall physics of vehicles improve, but one thing I would also like to see is better wareffects surrounding vehicles. Like better and more beutiful afterburners for planes along with moving engine parts etc. And jetwash for jetengines when flying low, and things like vaportrails, shockwave when breaking the soundbarrier. But also bombs who fall and accelerate when falling and not flowting to the target.

[Avgeris 64]

it impresses me how everybody here misses to mention the Clutch. This is the only thing that I would like to see in wheeled vehicles.

[ProfTournesol 956]

it impresses me how everybody here misses to mention the Clutch. This is the only thing that I would like to see in wheeled vehicles.

What for ?

[NeMeSiS 11]

What for ?

Changing gears.

:p