Beagle 684 Posted November 16, 2012 Ah, makes sense. I just have to cry every time I see the displays inside the Strykers in OA...RTT is used a lot in recent Simulation games like DCS...but belive me if you really want to use this displays you're forced to zoom them in or use a zoomed quickview to that point where that display fills half your screen. RTT does not solve the problem that you're sitting in frontof a 2D Monitor pretending you're in a 3 dimensional battlefield. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enricksolt 12 Posted November 16, 2012 Yea, making internal for tanks is time consuming, of cource it is, like everything else. But working on a feature doesn't mean that all the BIS team is working on that, how much time do a single guy take for model a tank with internals and textures... a month? And how much take another guy for put it ingame and make it fully functional...a week? Now, i don't have any experience as a crew manager and i don't know lots of things about game development, but how hard is build a small team of 2-3 guys for do the job, ARMA3 will be release in Q2-Q3 2013, they have a lot of time for do that. Punish me if i'm telling bullshit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted November 16, 2012 Yea, making internal for tanks is time consuming, of cource it is, like everything else. But working on a feature doesn't mean that all the BIS team is working on that, how much time do a single guy take for model a tank with internals and textures... a month? And how much take another guy for put it ingame and make it fully functional...a week? Now, i don't have any experience as a crew manager and i don't know lots of things about game development, but how hard is build a small team of 2-3 guys for do the job, ARMA3 will be release in Q2-Q3 2013, they have a lot of time for do that.Punish me if i'm telling bullshit. I don't have a whole lot of industry experience but I don't think there's a game studio out there that would likely decide "you know what? We have too much money. We should dump 100 grand and a few months into something that we decided not to do at the outset and has limited value." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enricksolt 12 Posted November 16, 2012 I don't have a whole lot of industry experience but I don't think there's a game studio out there that would likely decide "you know what? We have too much money. We should dump 100 grand and a few months into something that we decided not to do at the outset and has limited value." Like the Underwater Combat? One of those "striking new feature" that everyone will use a couple of times and then leave it to itself? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maio 293 Posted November 16, 2012 Like the Underwater Combat? One of those "striking new feature" that everyone will use a couple of times and then leave it to itself? Says who :) ? Adding a new dimension to the battlefield does not compare with adding a tank interior. The former enhances the sandbox and game play options, while the latter only adds a role play element. Does it bring functionality as well ? Yes, it does. It is a feature I want myself, but I'd gladly give it up, over the under water environment. BTW, until now we have seen multiple vehicles based on the same platform. The Cheetah AA platform is based on the Panther (Namer) which is based on the Slammer (Merkava) off of which 2 more platforms are based, the Sandstorm and the Scorcher. So we have 5 vehicles gravitating around the same chassis (aprox.) This could either mean BI is making a 1 fits all solution... or not. But I am kinda hoping for the latter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoRailgunner 0 Posted November 16, 2012 Guess BIS can make internals for all their A3 vehicles - question is just how detailed and functional it has to be for each vehicle. Just take a crew-seat in a A2OA vehicle and see/feel how much you like it and how fast people like to change their A2OA "profession". Of course BIS could always say "Interiors for vehicles are meh - let's simply force players into 3rd person view for A3 vehicles!!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nodunit 397 Posted November 16, 2012 (edited) Cheap solution, best of both worlds. Cost effective, enhances awareness and establishes unique traits between armor vehicles. Make an interior, allow no sunlight so that it is pitch black save for the viewports in the varying stations. In this way a tank with a single viewport would differ from one with and so on and so forth. The vehicles are more unique, you gain more awareness, costs significantly less than a fully fleshed out interior.Pretty? Perhaps not, but lets face it, save for a few enthusiasts, the only reason a person would stare at the interior details for long is if they had to perform a function through it, or were forced to. The latter not exactly good to bank on when it comes to the cost. Edited November 16, 2012 by NodUnit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted November 16, 2012 Like the Underwater Combat? One of those "striking new feature" that everyone will use a couple of times and then leave it to itself? It sounds like this may be a major part of the plot ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wipman 1 Posted November 17, 2012 Hi, IMO the use of the Underwater element will depend on the end on the missions makers, and there're not too much out there... i think that's much probable that the players gonna be playing like a 80% of the time on the ground, on foot or inside an IFV, APC or car and a 17% inside a chopper; i'll give the Underwater a use of a 3% and that just on the begining and being generous... . To have some more lateral hatches for the driver would be more usefull, will add inmersion and could save lives; and be forced to use the 3Rd person view when driving a vehicle will be a very cheap solution for the driver's awareness problem, aside an inmersion killer. Let's C ya Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wipman 1 Posted November 17, 2012 Hi, another thing that would be an improvement on the vehicles, will be smoke launchers, working... smoke launchers; nowadays is very common that jeep alike vehicles like HMMWVs and others have smoke launchers, that hide the vehicle from the NME view and from their laser aimed weapons, is very good for a prudent retreatment on time. Also the fatter vehicles, like APCs/IFVs should have by the time that the game is based on, they should have anti-proyectile defensive systems, other than the Reactive Armour Plates or the SLAT Armour, something for make the laser weapons to impact near the vehicle and not In, the vehicle; and anti-shell/anti-missile stopping systems, that should be a standard or just a common system. That would be vehicle quality too IMO. Let's C ya Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
max power 21 Posted November 17, 2012 I agree that your suggestions are good, wipman, but remember that this isn't a wishlist thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonci87 163 Posted November 17, 2012 We already have smoke launcher for vehicels in Arma 2.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JuggernautOfWar 1 Posted November 24, 2012 Hi, another thing that would be an improvement on the vehicles, will be smoke launchers, working... smoke launchers; nowadays is very common that jeep alike vehicles like HMMWVs and others have smoke launchers, that hide the vehicle from the NME view and from their laser aimed weapons, is very good for a prudent retreatment on time.Also the fatter vehicles, like APCs/IFVs should have by the time that the game is based on, they should have anti-proyectile defensive systems, other than the Reactive Armour Plates or the SLAT Armour, something for make the laser weapons to impact near the vehicle and not In, the vehicle; and anti-shell/anti-missile stopping systems, that should be a standard or just a common system. That would be vehicle quality too IMO. Let's C ya Every feature you just listed is already confirmed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jayke 1 Posted November 24, 2012 This would be good however I would rather them focus on bugs etc..+ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
