Vehicle Quality

[andersson 285]

For me tank interiors are very important. I stopped using MBTs since armed assualt as I struggle with being glued to the optics all the time. In OFP I also used the view ports while driving. In armed assault and arma2 I'm limited to one viewport only when Im turned in, which give me less overview. Then its also important for me due to immersion.

I would be very glad if MBT internals came back in arma3.

[EricM 0]

If interiors are SO important, why have we not seen a single mod released that adds them?

1) It's complicated to find the good reference for real tank interiors (vs semi fictional tanks in A3)

2) There was no RTT for periscopes and screens, making it of very limited use.

3) There was no unencrypted models of A2 anyway to add them to all the vanilla models.

We'll see if there are MBT interiors in the Alpha... If not, we can cry, shout and protest, or start making ones... But we'll still need the MLODs and that's only in the hands of BIS

[Jensin 1]

With tanks, there is so much work to do on the little stuff (tanks are very complex). Most of the time players don't spend a large amount of time looking through the interior. I sometimes drive tanks or APCs on realism or patrol ops, and I am always on the look out for enemies, ignoring the rest of the interior.

[b00ce 160]

1) It's complicated to find the good reference for real tank interiors (vs semi fictional tanks in A3)

2) There was no RTT for periscopes and screens, making it of very limited use.

3) There was no unencrypted models of A2 anyway to add them to all the vanilla models.

1. Maybe you should talk to NodUnit. ;)

2. That didn't stop them from making "working" periscopes/screen for the AAV, M113, Bradley, and STRYKER.

3. This is a valid point, however I think he was referring to custom addons built from the ground up and/or using the sample models we DO have.

[dm 9]

To echo what b00ce said:

1) It's complicated to find the good reference for real tank interiors (vs semi fictional tanks in A3)

Oh, I'm fully aware of this, I've made my fair share of interiors for vehicles, and MBTs are especially hard to find reference for.

2) There was no RTT for periscopes and screens, making it of very limited use.

While RTT certainly makes things easier, it was also completely possible to achieve working results before RTT existed.

3) There was no unencrypted models of A2 anyway to add them to all the vanilla models.

Yes, but why do things like CWR's M60 (for which there is endless reference) or any of the other community tank addons not have interiors?

Answer: they're a fuck-load of work (believe me, I've made them, and even with technical specs/drawings/designs its still a LOT of work/time/effort) for what is really a very small payout.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Answer: they're a fuck-load of work (believe me, I've made them, and even with technical specs/drawings/designs its still a LOT of work/time/effort) for what is really a very small payout.

I guess a lot of us here made interiors, thus we know what it takes BUT it's nonetheless important for immersion, compared to the awful window view we have now. To reward the hard work making it, let's make those interiors somehow functional, that will be a great improvement.

[De_little_Bubi 1]

the sad thing is that if bis delivers some basic interiours, maybe just a modelled room without textures etc. (which is totally enough as a change for the gunner for example) - the game papers will talk about the "unfinished" product and how bad it is and people will see the screenshots and agree.

so its better to leave them out completly :(

[Smurf 12]

Or make the interior dark, drawning only what matters: viewports, mirrors, MFDs. Just like GT5's interiors: Premium cars vs Standard cars.

I think that is a good compromise.

[nodunit 397]

The "foundation", the ability, the technology to do it has been there since day ONE of OFP. They haven't removed anything from the game, they just haven't created the content to use it since then.

If interiors are SO important, why have we not seen a single mod released that adds them?

You could go and make an addon for ArmA2 right now that adds interiors to all tanks. But no one has. I wonder why...

But its much easier to call BI lazy or greedy whores

HDR. With the way it acted in Arma 1 and Arma 2, interiors without a viewport to the sun always spelled trouble. They tried something with the striker in Arma 1 to make it appear more like you were looking through a viewport, but that backfired due to the HDR and as a result the interior went super nova. Unfortunately this persists in Arma 2, if you walk into a building, or get in a vehicle that does not have a viewport with the skyline visible, then the interior will light up which makes things difficult to read and shatters much of the immersion, especially when the crew is glowing.

Interiors have always been possible yes, but given that outside of a few features, the greatest most noticeable purpose they'd serve is visual..having that HDR problem would make it extremely detrimental to even bother with the effort. Arma 3 however does not appear to be experiencing this problem and as a result, interiors are more liable.

With tanks, there is so much work to do on the little stuff (tanks are very complex). Most of the time players don't spend a large amount of time looking through the interior. I sometimes drive tanks or APCs on realism or patrol ops, and I am always on the look out for enemies, ignoring the rest of the interior.

Complexity would only need to go as far as the creator would be willing, as for the rest, you'd be surprised how much you begin to rely on the interior for information when it is disabled upon your HUD, for example speedometers and airspeed indicators take on a whole new level of full functionality when you can't simply look at the HUD to determine speed.

[Timnos 1]

Most of the time players don't spend a large amount of time looking through the interior.

That's because ArmA doesn't simulate functional interior's like this -

GDUUfoHbV5w

Admittedly the majority of ArmA players prefer to use it as a game rather than a simulation, but there are a few of us here that like to simulate combat as true to life as is possible with a PC.

[dm 9]

HDR. With the way it acted in Arma 1 and Arma 2, interiors without a viewport to the sun always spelled trouble. They tried something with the striker in Arma 1 to make it appear more like you were looking through a viewport, but that backfired due to the HDR and as a result the interior went super nova. Unfortunately this persists in Arma 2, if you walk into a building, or get in a vehicle that does not have a viewport with the skyline visible, then the interior will light up which makes things difficult to read and shatters much of the immersion, especially when the crew is glowing.

Interiors have always been possible yes, but given that outside of a few features, the greatest most noticeable purpose they'd serve is visual..having that HDR problem would make it extremely detrimental to even bother with the effort. Arma 3 however does not appear to be experiencing this problem and as a result, interiors are more liable.

Its controllable with a selection of smart shadow lods and config entries, I know, becuase I have done it.

[nodunit 397]

Very well, YOU know that, not everyone else does, and unless that information is shared, it is less likely that others will find out.

Hell if I had that information I'd be more inclined to work on interiors for even Arma 2, might even to hit up another mod group and ask if I could borrow the shell of their tank and make an interior for it just for giggles.

Edited July 17, 2012 by NodUnit

[W0lle 1042]

Because from what I hear they moved over a full time ArmA developer to develop a zombie plugin for a tactical milsim game

excuse me if I feel rather betrayed that they're abandoning the tactical community to make that crap (that's pouring in cod kiddies and ruining the arma community btw)

I know they read the forums, I don't say anything I wouldn't like to have them read

Maybe next time do some research on your own before you just babble something you heard from someone.

Dean Hall is a BI Developer yes, but if you bother to read a few more internet sites you will notice that he developed DayZ in his free time...

First of all, they removed interiors from the game (because it was in OFP you ignorant fool)

Nothing was removed, the interiors were just not added to a completely new game because as one developer once said: Creating the interiors would take as much time as the whole vehicle.

And maybe one day you will realize that creating a commercial computer game is not the same as creating a Mod where you usually have no deadlines to keep.

And finally: consider yourself warned for calling others "ignorant fool".

If you're unable to discuss without insulting others, then these forums are not the place for you to have discussions.

[onlyrazor 11]

---------- Post added at 02:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:31 PM ----------

First of all, they removed interiors from the game (because it was in OFP you ignorant fool)

Second of all, there have been mods that add interiors to tanks and vehicles, just not all of them

and if you expect the ArmA community being as small as it is to do something like adding interiors to ALL vehicles

Then you're a ridiculous person. I'm sorry but I don't feel it should be up to the community to finish a half baked game

Do your research next time

Hate to point it out, your second quote is misattributed to me. Might want to fix it.

[kilroy the nerd 14]

I only want a sort of vehicle interior that makes it easier to see around me for awareness, not for pretties.

Like the Bradley driver interior, lets me see through the different viewports to increase awareness.

[shuaijan 1]

I'm not really concerned about interior but more about vehicle performance and variety.

We have to mind that all we have seen is WIP pre alpha, but i have some concerns.

When i look at the current pictures of tanks i haven't seen a single coaxial machinegun neither on the merkava or the t-100, that leaves some questions open about the combat capabilities of those vehicles.

Especially if we mount a railgun to the t-100 and use a small caliber for the tank we would have a tank killer but nothing else, the slug would just penetrate walls of buildings, not destroying them.

We would have to use different types of slugs (in terms of material) to have different effects on different targets, e.g. a squashing slug that transmitts all kinetic energy to the wall of the building.

I haven't seen a single rocket or launch-tube on a vehicle, wich would seem very unlikely because it increases the power of normal vehicles against armored vehicles or aircraft,

it even would make sense to install them on tanks, as we all have seen rockets increase the combat range of tanks (AT-11 Sniper-B on T-90).

It would simply show a wrong picture of the modern battlefield if we leave them out.

As far as infantry fighting vehicles go, i haven't seen that much, i have only seen one object that shows resemblance to a IFV, it also has no guided anti tank weapons.

To adress the variety issue, let me see we have two more or less heavy tanks (Merkava ~65t and if looking at the Black Eagle and the T-90, the T-100 could be around 50-55 t),

one IFV with a 20-30mm automatic cannon, and some armored and unarmored Transport vehicles but and most of what we've seen is OPFOR equipment,

and even if we multiply each vehicle class by 4 (if we look at both BLUEFOR and OPFOR), add artillery, mortars and stuff i still see not that much variety for a milsim.

But like I said in the second line we are still in alpha and there is much to do, but i hope they don't focus too much on the graphics anymore, they are already awesome (and personally i don't care that much about the looks of a game),

I hope for a content rich milsim with strong modular (like the guns equipable with different additional stuff like weapons (coaxial mg) and else) armored vehicles,

high quality modular (variable payload) aircrafts and good infantry weapons (wich are already modular).

Ceterum censeo T-95 esse addendum.

Edited July 18, 2012 by shuaijan

[liquidpinky 11]

I only want a sort of vehicle interior that makes it easier to see around me for awareness, not for pretties.

Like the Bradley driver interior, lets me see through the different viewports to increase awareness.

The new DLC ACR Pandur II in A2 uses three viewports for the driver, can't really say how detailed the surrounding compartment is until the DLC is fully released.

Should be like that for all turned in armour drivers at a minimum.

You don't need PIP for periscopic type viewports either, they just have to offset your interior model upwards to fake it. No resources wasted that way.

[arigram 0]

Interiors are definitely very complex and they do seem to require as much if not more work as the vehicle modelling.

Games that have modelled the interiors, either tend to feature one or two vehicles (aircraft or tanks, for example) or take a long time to get it right and announce it as main selling point.

There are some thoughts specific to Arma 3:

- Armaments and vehicles will be less in quantity than previous installments but they aim for higher quality. So far we have been shown one vehicle of every kind for every side, so I doubt that there will be more than one tank or attack helicopter or APC per side.

- Helicopters, aircraft, cars and APC have featured detailed cockpits and cabins as they had before, meaning only heavy armored vehicles like tanks and artillery usually miss those. Tank interiors are the most complex to model, even more so than aircraft cockpits, because of their multiple geometry and levels. So, it means that resources have to be dedicated specifically for two tank interiors, perhaps one artist working just on these.

- If there are two tanks (even if they have external variations), they would be the Merkava, which will need a realstic recreation of an existing interior and the fictional one that can be made to look like anything.

- With the Merkava, the modelling should be detailed and look realistic but the fictional tank can have a more simplistic layout and can take less time to create as "difficult" geometry and texturing can be simplified.

- I would not mind at all, if all "closed" vehicles such as tanks, artillery and APC have simplified geometries and textures with no decorative details but with all the functionality present (including important working monitors, buttons, levers and lights), as long as the textures are good looking. They well could look "Tron-like", that is, old-school CGI like (without flurorecent lights of course), as long as they keep a convincing geometry. For example, there is no reason to include every fire extinguisher, sign, button and bolt, if the interior is modelled to the base shape of the vehicle with the seats, stations and monitors in realistic places, like a modeller would have in the beginning of the vehicle design.

- Further refinements can be added in DLC, including new vehicles, completely modelled, as it has been shown with Arma 2 and TKOH: e.g. the Leopard 2 with Greek/Spanish/German forces.

- Viewports or external view monitors can just show the external world as normal and RTT-needed stations can be controlled by graphic options, so the driver could still be able to drive the vehicle from the general interior view and choosing not to follow the gunner's perspective if performance is needed.

- There could be a system to easily incorporate third-party modded interiors without needing the original exterior model, so BI or modders can easily add or refine the geometry and textures. Weapon customization and a new system for incorporating mods has been confirmed so it well be another module.

[Timnos 1]

Would it be possible to film a vehicle interior to create a 360 degree panoramic movie and somehow impliment it ingame, kind of like one of those virtual tours -

http://www.panoviewing.co.uk/

[Desert1 1]

I feel that it is very difficult for me to aquire targets with the current 'peephole' optics used in the MBT gunner position, I would much prefer an interior where I can use clickable buttons or screens to look at a wider view for the gunner, if this is of course accurate to real life specifications. Also, the Merkava tank was designed mainly for the comfort of the crew, and for the interior. It is even possible to stand completely up in a Merkava tank, so shouldn't a tank that was designed mainly on making the interior good, be fully modelled in game if you are planning to use it? However, aside from the extra hours needed to complete these interiors, getting references and information on the interiors of tanks is extremely difficult, and having a fully clickable interior is completely impossible due to the sensitive nature of some of a tank's optics and systems. So I'm kind of on the fence about the quality of the inside of a tank, as while it does make the user feel more in the tank, and opens up more functionality for positions such as the driver, gunner and commander, the idea is dragged back because of the time needed to complete these mammoth tasks and the research needed to fully complete them, which can also be time consuming or even possibly money consuming.

[Robbeh 1]

Personally other than for immersion I doubt many people would actually use an "in-cockpit" view in a tank as it provides very limited visibility.

Something I do feel is missing from the game is a proper damage model for fixed wing aircraft. Being able to damage flaps, fuel tanks and even the cockpit would be a nice addition to the game.

[[evo] dan 79]

I'd like it if a part was damaged (such as an engine) you could go up with a recovery vehicle, put a spare engine on a truck, and then change it out with simplified animations. Although that may be something for ACE3 (hint)

[frederf 0]

I would be much happier with a 6-sided box interior textured black than being forced into the 2D optics all the time. When I hit the optics command in A2 it shows me a third person view. WTF?!!?

[chortles 263]

Personally other than for immersion I doubt many people would actually use an "in-cockpit" view in a tank as it provides very limited visibility.

In combat flight simulators and BF3 I have actually used "in-cockpit view" a bunch because switching between first-person cockpit and third-person view chase cam actually helped (moreso than first-person "HUD only" with no cockpit) with orienting myself in the 3D space... but yeah, in a tank game if I'm going to use first-person it's only to see what my character's field of view would be or going to optics; third-person view is for telling what's going on!

Something I do feel is missing from the game is a proper damage model for fixed wing aircraft. Being able to damage flaps, fuel tanks and even the cockpit would be a nice addition to the game.

Considering what I heard about how even OA's "component modeling" was still under-the-hood hit point-based, wouldn't this require something of a more drastic "breaking down and building back up" of Real Virtuality?

[Mr. Charles 22]

Personally other than for immersion I doubt many people would actually use an "in-cockpit" view in a tank as it provides very limited visibility.

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