Vehicle Quality

[kireta21 13]

Try RO2 and you'll see how good only first-person in vehicles can be :|

Indeed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXCsMUit_i4

[reconditioned 3]

Lots of nice work put into the tank interiors in RO2. (Only 2 tanks atm though) I would enjoy it more if the crew had the ability to enter and exit but hope to see that added in the future with more vehicles. Seriously we need interiors in Arma 3 because no one wants to be stuck in one optics view for hours.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Would love to see the real view from the driver/gunner/commander/loader/passenger seat just not again somekind of "black-boxed" view. Perhaps add something more for players todo on each crew station? Adding useable/clean small rectangular periscopes on the turret hatches and one or two working+functional MFD screens would help to get the right feeling of operating a tank/vehicle. Sure vehicle interiors aren't done within 5 or 10 minutes but its imo really worth the time, tears and sweat!! ;)

[metalcraze 290]

Try RO2 and you'll see how good only first-person in vehicles can be :|

Meh RO2 isn't a good example. And they would be a waste of dev time in ArmA since they are non-functional. But I do miss this eye-candy from OFP.

Steel Beasts Pro has the best tank cockpits. Because they work. BIS buying eSim in a miraculous turn of events is my little dream.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Meh RO2 isn't a good example. And they would be a waste of dev time in ArmA since they are non-functional. But I do miss this eye-candy from OFP.

That's the question, but it has already been stated here : eye candy interior as in OFP + functionality of some instruments would be nice.

[Keith0024 1]

I understand that the inclusion of tank interiors could ostensibly take a lot of work; however, I fail to see how that stance alone disqualifies their implementation. The previous incarnation of this game already has cockpits and interiors for fighters, helicopters and let's not forget the Bradley IFV. I don't see how making the leap to the interior of the M1 after modelling the interior of a Bradley is going to drastically affect the man hours at BI. As far as situational awareness is concerned; let's not forget the announcement that Arma 3 is going to include WORKING MFDs. How could a commander of our imaginary M1 not function if he could use the numpad keys to articulate the exterior camera (Being displayed on the MFD) and the mouse to rotate his head within the station as necessary? Is modelling the interior of a tank without clickable buttons really that much more difficult than modeling the (Classified) interior of an F-35 cockpit? Perhaps I'm just speaking out of technological ignorance, but it seems to me that being able to turn my head around in first person and seeing the interior armor plating, warning labels, switches, buttons and materials of a Bradley IFV is not hugely different from being able to do the same thing in an M1. Doesn't sound like such an outlandish request to be made of professional video game developers.

[PuFu 4600]

I understand that the inclusion of tank interiors could ostensibly take a lot of work; however, I fail to see how that stance alone disqualifies their implementation.

This wasn't the reason. Reason is that the benefit is outweighed by the necesary extra work hours (a lot more than on the exterior).

The previous incarnation of this game already has cockpits and interiors for fighters, helicopters and let's not forget the Bradley IFV. I don't see how making the leap to the interior of the M1 after modelling the interior of a Bradley is going to drastically affect the man hours at BI.

You see, for helicopters and planes, there are good reasons to have a fully modeled interior - such as instruments and the likes. It is not the same for tanks, at least not in A2.

regarding Bradley:

1. the bradley is not made by BIS in the house, and IRC the interior was made before the lad got contacted by BIS (read it as :there were no time contrains here").

2. for IFVs where the passengers get to see the interior it's a different thing.

As far as situational awareness is concerned; let's not forget the announcement that Arma 3 is going to include WORKING MFDs. How could a commander of our imaginary M1 not function if he could use the numpad keys to articulate the exterior camera (Being displayed on the MFD) and the mouse to rotate his head within the station as necessary?

while i look forward to working PIP, i really hope it's a notch above in terms of refresh rate over tkoh.

Is modelling the interior of a tank without clickable buttons really that much more difficult than modeling the (Classified) interior of an F-35 cockpit?

yes it is.

Perhaps I'm just speaking out of technological ignorance, but it seems to me that being able to turn my head around in first person and seeing the interior armor plating, warning labels, switches, buttons and materials of a Bradley IFV is not hugely different from being able to do the same thing in an M1. Doesn't sound like such an outlandish request to be made of professional video game developers.

While for most NATO vehicles some referances and public information are easy to find, it is not the same when it comes down to their russian, israeli, iranian etc counterparts.

[bluedrake42 10]

I understand that the inclusion of tank interiors could ostensibly take a lot of work; however, I fail to see how that stance alone disqualifies their implementation. The previous incarnation of this game already has cockpits and interiors for fighters, helicopters and let's not forget the Bradley IFV. I don't see how making the leap to the interior of the M1 after modelling the interior of a Bradley is going to drastically affect the man hours at BI. As far as situational awareness is concerned; let's not forget the announcement that Arma 3 is going to include WORKING MFDs. How could a commander of our imaginary M1 not function if he could use the numpad keys to articulate the exterior camera (Being displayed on the MFD) and the mouse to rotate his head within the station as necessary? Is modelling the interior of a tank without clickable buttons really that much more difficult than modeling the (Classified) interior of an F-35 cockpit? Perhaps I'm just speaking out of technological ignorance, but it seems to me that being able to turn my head around in first person and seeing the interior armor plating, warning labels, switches, buttons and materials of a Bradley IFV is not hugely different from being able to do the same thing in an M1. Doesn't sound like such an outlandish request to be made of professional video game developers.

I agree, PuFu is full of it

[PuFu 4600]

I agree, PuFu is full of it

where the fuck you sort of blokes come from? Have YOU modelled a 20 polly mesh in your life to put your 2 cents on it?

Obviously it is NOT an outlandish request. ask yourself this then: will that happen?

[bluedrake42 10]

where the fuck you sort of blokes come from? Have YOU modelled a 20 polly mesh in your life to put your 2 cents on it?

Obviously it is NOT an outlandish request. ask yourself this then: will that happen?

okay lets break this down.

This wasn't the reason. Reason is that the benefit is outweighed by the necesary extra work hours (a lot more than on the exterior).

In comparison to the modeling of an entire island, aircraft exteriors and interiors, weapons, animations, special effects, the modeling of the interior of a tank is an absurdly minuscule amount of work. And I imagine in the past 4 years (since the release of ArmA 2) Bohemia has had more than enough time to fit in "the necessary hours" to model the interiors of FICTIONAL TANKS THAT DON'T REQUIRE EXACT REFERENCES. And I'm sure that with the past few FORTY MILLION dollars they've received from the DayZ player influx they can afford to take a few weeks out of the lives of their modelers to do so.

You see, for helicopters and planes, there are good reasons to have a fully modeled interior - such as instruments and the likes. It is not the same for tanks, at least not in A2.

Without bringing into the conversation how inaccurate or useless the majority of ArmA 2's aircraft interiors are, the interior of a tank gives the player both immersion and situational awareness. Being able to use viewports to check the surroundings, and just not being stuck into a forced-zoomed tank scope, brings a lot to otherwise boring armor gameplay. Don't believe me? Go play cold war crisis.

yes it is.

Refer to first statement

While for most NATO vehicles some referances and public information are easy to find, it is not the same when it comes down to their russian, israeli, iranian etc counterparts.

Refer to first statement

So in short.

You're full of it.

---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------

Oh and should I also say that this is a recycled game engine with graphical upgrades since 2001

So all you butthurt Bohemia-defending zombies can rest with your "ITS TOO MUCH WORK WAHHHH"

Puh-fucking-leaze. If they're going to keep recycling the same engine and charging me 40 bucks for it

Then I better fucking well get my tanks with interiors, and every other bell and whistle I desire

[ProfTournesol 956]

Oh and should I also say that this is a recycled game engine with graphical upgrades since 2001

So all you butthurt Bohemia-defending zombies can rest with your "ITS TOO MUCH WORK WAHHHH"

Puh-fucking-leaze. If they're going to keep recycling the same engine and charging me 40 bucks for it

Then I better fucking well get my tanks with interiors, and every other bell and whistle I desire

Name calling doesn't make any good to defending your point of view.

[-Coulum- 35]

In comparison to the modeling of an entire island, aircraft exteriors and interiors, weapons, animations, special effects, the modeling of the interior of a tank is an absurdly minuscule amount of work.

You kind of just labelled the problem with making interiors for all vehicles right there - BIS already has so much to do that they can't afford to also do interiors and the several hundred other "minuscule tasks" that others want them to do. I would love to see interiors for all vehicles but then again I would also like to see animations for getting out of vehicles, realistic wound placement, improved ai voices, something to replace tab locking, 3d editor, underground structures etc. etc. etc. But somewhere a choice is going to have to be made and certain things will have to get cut. Due to its high "work:gameplay benifit" ratio, I would not be surprised nor upset if 3d interiors weren't in arma 3.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I prefer tank interiors, even if it means not being very accurate. However, the things that are modeled should be fairly accurate - at least not completely wrong/opposite like certain aircraft heading indicators ;) Although I'm not usually a tanker myself in the game, from what I've heard from more serious players is that it usually involves a great deal of waiting. I can't imagine sitting there "all day" long staring into a scope, starting the engine if you happen to move the mouse, accidentally revealing your position. Or being forced into a "full concentration mode" during low activity times, which would allow you to see things you otherwise might not have.

Another big hate is being denied access to certain overlays that are never available while in a scope, like GPS, compass, and clock. I'd even settle for a generic interior where I can look around, see other players. Maybe someone is hurt, which would show up as a bloody texture. I'm pretty sure if I broke my foot I would notice before I was actually outside the tank.

[Smurf 12]

The only thing that doesn't have interiors right now are tanks. EVERYTHING else has, from the outstandings russians aircrafts to the not so used civilian vehicles.

Tanks didn't had cause they didn't needed it: Viewports were useless, interior interactions were impossible (without cluttering the action menu at least) and MFDs (almost) impossible. Now that the tech barrier is broken, why not?

Probably speaking for the majority of players here, I don't care about what\where switches\knobs are; A generic interior with usefull things are more then welcome.

Also, something that would be nice is a little variation for the outside looks: marks (as addons have been doing since OFP), equipment carried (spare equipment, infantry backpacks) and so on. Not so big things that actually adds for immersion.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Smurf

[bluedrake42 10]

Name calling doesn't make any good to defending your point of view.

And not name calling just gets me swept under the rug

I've tried logical and reasonable counterpoints on forums before, it rarely works

Especially when I'm just some fucking bloke who apparently knows nothing about modeling and should just shut up >.>

or at least thats what PuFu would like you to believe

You kind of just labelled the problem with making interiors for all vehicles right there - BIS already has so much to do that they can't afford to also do interiors and the several hundred other "minuscule tasks" that others want them to do. I would love to see interiors for all vehicles but then again I would also like to see animations for getting out of vehicles, realistic wound placement, improved ai voices, something to replace tab locking, 3d editor, underground structures etc. etc. etc. But somewhere a choice is going to have to be made and certain things will have to get cut. Due to its high "work:gameplay benifit" ratio, I would not be surprised nor upset if 3d interiors weren't in arma 3.

And I'm making the case that Vehicle interiors are more important

There's a difference between a nice extra feature and something that makes the game unenjoyable

Being stuck in a tank scope where you can't see a thing, makes armor gameplay terrible

What pisses me off the most is that all these features were in the game when codemasters and BI were still together

And I seriously still prefer OFP to ArmA in many many ways.

In fact I believe the whole world does, BI hasn't made a game that has received higher scores than OFP... since OFP

Don't get me wrong Dragon Rising was terrible too... Codemasters kept BI's crap together and kept them consistent with releasing a COMPLETE game

and BI kept codemasters consistent with important realistic features and content

ever since they split, BI releases half baked feature incomplete sims, and codemasters releases over-arcady sim wannabe's

we haven't had that good balance between sim and game since cold war crisis.

[[frl]myke 14]

@Bluedrake42

You already received a warning about your abusive language. Obviously a warning isn't enough so this time we will raise a bit: +1 Infraction and banned from thread. Maybe now you're willing to learn your lesson.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

Let me start by first saying

Alll the pointy things are valid.

Now, clearly tank interiors are simply a case of priority. And I'm aware that to use them properly would also require some new anims but I think the return for effort may be a bit more than some here believe. Catching a glimpse of the interior while entering or exiting a tank or transitioning from one action to another alone adds quite a bit of depth to the imersion and for many imersion can be a delicate thing, in otherwords if you break it takes awhile to get back to it, and I can see how current tanks can do this.

I dont think this has been as much of an issue in past because I think most ArmA2 players are bit more goal orientated so tolerate a little 'meh' to get the opportunity to pound the shit out of something with a BFG. But the bar is being raised on so many points in A3 this issue could start looking like a pair dogs balls streched back to the last gate.

Also as a customer (yeah that is probably a given) I know BIS have already stated the they will not be focusing on the diversity of vehicles that we have seen in previous titles so I would like that the vehicles we do get are done to the highest level they can. If fewer vehicles are on offer then thats a higher probability I jump into the 'imersion breaking' tank. And I dont mind if the interor is not 100% authentic, it shouldn't be anyway if you consider that the game is 20+ years into the future.

so plus 1 to tank interiors, but improved vehicle damage comes first

[dragon01 902]

A great thing about ArmA is that if community usually takes care of equipment diversity. Most important equipment from around the world has been modded into both ArmA and ArmA II, and I think it'll be the same for AIII. All BI has to do is to set the standard for community-made stuff.

[max power 21]

The armoured personnel carrier interiors are, of course, for the passengers mainly. I don't think time constraints factored much into the m113 since all APCs have some kind of interior.

I think the reason why tanks had interiors in OFP is because assets were less time intensive to make back then. Trust me, there is a difference in making 5 different high res textures instead of 1 low res one (split up into a bunch of sections). Not only that, but in order to make the interiors not look like shit, you would require much higher accuracy in modelling (which means more time consuming modelling and also more time consuming research) to embellish the higher resolution that modern audiences demand. You can get away with a lot of generalization when you're dealing with lower res stuff. I find that even modelling the interior of a car is much more difficult than modelling the exterior, and car interiors are relatively simple, logically laid out, and easy to get pictures of. I would like tank interiors too (as long as someone else is modelling them), like our friend Bluedrake42. But, unlike Bluedrake42, I am capable of understanding and acknowledging the tremendous pain in the ass it is, and that things that are time consuming in business are also money consuming. At the risk of boasting about something I know little about: Of course, Codemasters were the only reason why OFP was good, so obviously this accounts for the tremendously awesome tank interiors in Dragon Rising and Red River.

[Boxxer502 1]

I agree the vehicles need to be way more realistic by sound and texture quality.

[wipman 1]

Hi, for me Vehicle Quality means to have interiors at least for the Driver aswell for the passengers in the APCs case; there're many servers that force the 1St person view and as driver you only have a single hatch to look outside, so you only see what's forward and loose or miss all what you've 'round. I think that some side *hatches will add alot not to the inmersion but to the awareness of the driver in relation to the terrain and possible obstacles on the vehicle's way and also of course in relation to possible targets or threats. As driver you can just look forward from inside, that's not good. Let's C ya

*Edit.

Edited November 17, 2012 by wipman

[khaki 10]

I just realized something, now that we have RTT in Arma 3, will that mean drivers/commanders and maybe even gunners will have a working display in the vehicle? Rather than a full screen optic or (for gunners) a older style circular scope.

[max power 21]

Is it possible to make displays or mirrors with RTT? Yes. Does that mean they will use it on all the things? I doubt it.

[khaki 10]

Ah, makes sense. I just have to cry every time I see the displays inside the Strykers in OA...

[max power 21]

On those kinds of displays, it's possible they will use RTT. It might even perform adequately if it doesn't have to render the terrain twice. The RTT in Take On worked well but it is pretty resource intensive.