Vehicle Quality

[bluedrake42 10]

The biggest problem I have with ArmA 2 is the inconsistent approach to vehicles

Where some vehicles are fully modeled, and work smoothly

Other vehicles (especially tanks) are half baked, and feature limited Interiors and functions

From what I've seen, all the vehicles so far presented in ArmA 3 look great, have fully modeled interiors, and are fully functional

Are we going to continually see this across all vehicles? Or is it going to be like ArmA 2, where only some vehicles get all the love

[max power 21]

This post makes no sense at all.

All of the vehicles are 'feature limited'. How are the tank interiors 'feature limited'? They don't have interiors at all. How does not having an interior mean it doesn't 'work smoothly'?

If you could define what you mean by feature, it would help a lot.

I believe they have said that the tanks will not have interiors again, as there is effort better spent in other areas.

[rafikrafik007 1]

Interiors of a modern tanks would be very cool but hard to do.

[Messiah 2]

The biggest problem I have with ArmA 2 is the inconsistent approach to vehicles

Where some vehicles are fully modeled, and work smoothly

Other vehicles (especially tanks) are half baked, and feature limited Interiors and functions

From what I've seen, all the vehicles so far presented in ArmA 3 look great, have fully modeled interiors, and are fully functional

Are we going to continually see this across all vehicles? Or is it going to be like ArmA 2, where only some vehicles get all the love

Tank interiors were left out, and with good reason in A2. Players spend a inexplicably small amount of time actually looking at the inside of a tank, and the rest of it looking out of the periscope view or 3rd person. Why waste a limited resource of man hours on something that adds zero functionality and gets hardly seen by anyone for more than a split second as they remark 'oooh, shiney', never to return to the internal view again.

You could compare it to modeling the entire engine bay of the wheeled vehicles. Sure, we'd all animate the bonnet and take a peek, but then thats the last we'd ever see of it.

Functionaliy wise, as with Max, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. The lack of interiors doesn't remove functionality, they are two different things entirely. Tanks could definitely have a bit of TLC with regards to Fire control systems and other bells and whistles, but personally ArmA has always been more about the on foot aspect of the game for me, the other elements are there to support it.

[Clarkey1 10]

You probably have a point Messiah, but I'm not sure you're taking RTT into account. We don't really have anything to tell us that we'll be able to use a CROWS system with RTT but it is a possibility. That possibility would IMHO make tank interior's very interesting. Much more interesting and useful than just 'oooh, shiney'.

[Booster 1]

We don't really have anything to tell us that we'll be able to use a CROWS system with RTT but it is a possibility. That possibility would IMHO make tank interior's very interesting. Much more interesting and useful than just 'oooh, shiney'.

I hear you man, I love tanks more than any other military vehicle and would be delighted to have something like this in Arma3 -

HcHbRG3I2Gc

[nodunit 397]

Tank interiors were left out, and with good reason in A2. Players spend a inexplicably small amount of time actually looking at the inside of a tank, and the rest of it looking out of the periscope view or 3rd person. Why waste a limited resource of man hours on something that adds zero functionality and gets hardly seen by anyone for more than a split second as they remark 'oooh, shiney', never to return to the internal view again.

You could compare it to modeling the entire engine bay of the wheeled vehicles. Sure, we'd all animate the bonnet and take a peek, but then thats the last we'd ever see of it.

Functionaliy wise, as with Max, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. The lack of interiors doesn't remove functionality, they are two different things entirely. Tanks could definitely have a bit of TLC with regards to Fire control systems and other bells and whistles, but personally ArmA has always been more about the on foot aspect of the game for me, the other elements are there to support it.

I spoke to several people who were interested in creating interiors for their tanks in Arma 2, the overall conclusion it seemed was less that it was a waste of time and resources but that HDR more or less destroyed the effect. Just like a house or any dark place without a window to the sun, the interior would light up, which destroyed any shadowing, made shading look horrid and the characters flesh have a neon glow.

Now if HDR infact no longer does that in A3, with the inclusion of RTT then it is quite possible that we'll see some addon interiors, especially for night missions now that lights have been reworked and look quite snazzy. And could you imagine what it would be like to sit there in the driver seat with the hatch closed while physX gives you a bumpy ride?

In fact I already know what tank I'm going for if that is confirmed, relive some old OFP memories with a modern and digital upgrade.

Edited June 8, 2012 by NodUnit

[rory_pamphilon 16]

The biggest problem I have with ArmA 2 is the inconsistent approach to vehicles

Where some vehicles are fully modeled, and work smoothly

Other vehicles (especially tanks) are half baked, and feature limited Interiors and functions

From what I've seen, all the vehicles so far presented in ArmA 3 look great, have fully modeled interiors, and are fully functional

Are we going to continually see this across all vehicles? Or is it going to be like ArmA 2, where only some vehicles get all the love

I agree, I really hope this is sorted out. One of the weakest parts of arma 2's fidelity was the non existent tank interiors. Some hardcore servers disable third person so your forced to look through a letter box which wouldn't be so bad if you could use the 4,7,9 & 6 keys to look left or right a bit. But currently on hardcore servers as a tank driver you have to turn out in order to see what's to the left or right which is definitely not what happens in real life in a warm zone.

[Messiah 2]

You probably have a point Messiah, but I'm not sure you're taking RTT into account. We don't really have anything to tell us that we'll be able to use a CROWS system with RTT but it is a possibility. That possibility would IMHO make tank interior's very interesting. Much more interesting and useful than just 'oooh, shiney'.

Yes and no. From what little we've seen of RTT (the submersible and the rear view camera in the vehicle) the 'refresh rate' or whatever you want to call it seems very low indeed (granted this can and probably will change/be addressed), and is mostly an immersive feature or at the very most suitable for things that don't require much precision like the sub navigation (from E3 reports the sub is very simple to operate, with no roll, drift or anything complicated as yet). I can't see it being very practicle for trying to use with an RWS, and at any rate using a RTT first person screen would (assuming things are setup vaguely the same as ArmA2) mean that you'd not have the same degree of movement with the RWS, you'd be unable to zoom the camera, switch vision modes or calibrate the range - so again, you'd spend most of your time in the actual RWS camera view where you have 100% dexterity and functionality with the RWS, not the RTT screen.

Personally RTT excites me mostly for its potentional for the immersive and low intensity applications, like crew compartment camera's so that dismounts can see outside of Patrol vehicles, or for centre console night vision screens for the drivers (assuming RTT can utilise different vision modes to the main scene)

I spoke to several people who were interested in creating interiors for their tanks in Arma 2, the overall conclusion it seemed was less that it was a waste of time and resources but that HDR more or less destroyed the effect. Just like a house or any dark place without a window to the sun, the interior would light up, which destroyed any shadowing, made shading look horrid and the characters flesh have a neon glow.

A very good point actually, I'd forgotten about this, I had the same issue with the UKF armoured vehicles as we were producing them, especially as many as the IFVs and the like are commonly a white shade of paint inside, exacerbating the HDR bloom issue. However, this I felt was more of an IFV issue, where you realistically may spend more time using internal views as a passenger. In terms of a MBT, you're going to spend 99% of the time driving, commanding or gunning via viewfinders, hence the interior adds little in terms of the effort needed to produce it for a limited team like BIS. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see interiors too, sure, but compared to a hundred other features, fixes and improvements they're very low down in any sort of significance rating.

I agree, I really hope this is sorted out. One of the weakest parts of arma 2's fidelity was the non existent tank interiors. Some hardcore servers disable third person so your forced to look through a letter box which wouldn't be so bad if you could use the 4,7,9 & 6 keys to look left or right a bit. But currently on hardcore servers as a tank driver you have to turn out in order to see what's to the left or right which is definitely not what happens in real life in a warm zone.

Whilst I agree that the letterbox view was horrendous, I fail to see how modeling a detailed interior would do anything to improve your first person awareness of things outside? If anything, this is an FOV problem, and one that doesn't seem too detached from reality:

M1A1 driver's view

Edited June 8, 2012 by Messiah

[rory_pamphilon 16]

I may be wrong here but don't most tank drivers sit in a very low profile cupola? So there should be option to rotate your head and look out of the small view ports/screens whatever to your side. With no internal view you can't even rotate your head!

[dm 9]

I may be wrong here but don't most tank drivers sit in a very low profile cupola?

You are indeed wrong.

Most tank drivers sit under a flat hatch and are provided with 3 (or more) periscopes, giving them limited (but not as limited as in ArmA) view to the front ~90 degrees.

Many tanks are now being fitted with front, rear and side cameras to improve the drivers view, but all-round vision from inside a buttoned up tank is terrible.

[Messiah 2]

Some sort of ability to look at the left and right periscopes while in the periscope view would be a nice addition then.

[nodunit 397]

...

As you mentioned with the example of RTT that is one of the most important factors. Immersion can do quite a bit for any particular area but in the end yeah it comes down to functionality. Lets take M1A2 for example, what all could the commander do when buttoned up? You can move your head around to look through the many periscopes rather than rely on the one which also give away where you are looking from gun movement. You mentioned RTT which would naturally be a screen to see what the gunner sees or CITV, through addon application the effect can be magnified with maps and other digital (perhaps even network sharing) information that would bring more life to the unit. Furthermore interaction through interior components would drive both necessity and immersion factors through the roof...

Of course I'm not expecting this, in fact all I really want is to see RTT become smoother and have standard camera functions.

[Messiah 2]

True, true, battlefield connectivity, viewing what the gunner is viewing through his sights, etc etc, although surely an interactive map is better served on the actual map screen rather than a very small RTT panel? Most of these applications are very nice, but not very accessible/user friendly in a 1st person view while buttoned up inside the tank (as in, they're going to be rather small and hard to read when viewing them from 1st person inside the tank, so immersion wise its all very funky, actual usablity I still not convinced)

[liquidpinky 11]

I hear you man, I love tanks more than any other military vehicle and would be delighted to have something like this in Arma3 -

Although that would be very nice, imagine the fun trying to wreck the interior properly of they adopt proper penetrable armour etc.

Someone would cry that a radio wasn't deformed properly or the seat didn't melt correctly when the tank went up in flames.

The more detail they add, the more rods they make for their own backs unfortunately.

Edited June 24, 2012 by W0lle
quoted video

[gossamersolid 155]

As long as we don't have any more incidents like the BTR-90 (Still can't see out of the windows and we're approaching 1.61). This can be solved when BIS releases it's ArmA 2 MLODs as the community can fix it.

[liquidpinky 11]

As long as we don't have any more incidents like the BTR-90 (Still can't see out of the windows and we're approaching 1.61). This can be solved when BIS releases it's ArmA 2 MLODs as the community can fix it.

Absolutely, the BTR-90 is a nightmare on hardcore CTI games.

[bluedrake42 10]

Exactly, tanks in ArmA 2 are severly limited in many ways.

For one drivers, gunners, and commanders have considerably limited situational awareness since they are often fixed to a single scope, sight, or viewport

In real life tank crewmen have the option of using various different sights, and have considerable situation awareness through cameras, various sights, and viewports

I don't care if tank interiors are modeled or not, but I do want tank gameplay to work as smoothly as it would in real life

Right now when I'm in a tank in ArmA 2 I feel like I'm blindfolded in a box with a teeny tiny hole cut into one side

Also when I say limited functionality... I mean to say not all of the tanks are fully usable/functional... duh.

For instance the commanders/loaders can't use the commander machine gun on the top

Also things like fire control and different sights aren't modeled correctly, hell even magnification levels aren't correct

So... I don't feel like I need to explain much

Most people on this thread seem to understand what I mean though, so I appreciate that

But yeah... tanks in ArmA 2 suck... even regardless of interiors

Right now I prefer the tanks in BF2 Project Reality...

And to prefer that over a war sim like arma... is kinda sad... so seriously. step up the game on armored vehicles

[Messiah 2]

The weapon stations above the commanders cupola has worked since ArmA 1 (or at least definitely in 2)?

No one is asking you explain anything, you've posted on a public forum, we're discussing that post, thats the aim surely? Just because I may point out a few inconsistencies or different opinions to yours doesn't mean I don't understand what you're talking about. I whole heartedly agree that situational awareness needs to be brought up to standard, the possibility of more periscope views or something along those lines. FCS and various sights, calibrations, range finding, yes yes and utter yes That doesn't then mean that BI should invest their limited time on accurately depicted interiors which very few people are going to spend more than a fleeting moment viewing. The things you've expanded upon and further explained your initial 4 line post with are all based around improving the currently limited and, to quote you, half baked letterbox views, not modeling interiors.

[metalcraze 290]

2 tanks that are identical in functionality and have fully modeled interiors vs. 10 different tanks but no interiors.

I'd pick the latter.

SB Pro is not a good example. They spent more than a decade making those vehicles they have functional and the game has nothing but them.

Maybe if BIS acquired eSim (if only for VBS2) one of these days...

[w0w00t 0]

Interiors like the BMPs or whatever it was, where you can actually USE the vision ports from the tanks interior are what we need. Not ridiculous detail, but something to look at instead of a single slit (done in a bad 2d overlay, and only one instead of many to the sides and stuff)

And then there's vehicles that have interiors but the vision slits are bugged and aren't usable.

Gunners/commanders should be able to use the interior of the turret instead of being stuck in the weapon sight 24/7, which is incredibly painful for people that gun alot.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

It'd be nice to use firing ports on the BMP series. Och, battle buses, every one of them.

[Clarkey1 10]

We could still have 3 periscopes/viewports even with the current tank view. Simply set the front left scope to numpad 7 and the right to numpad 9. And for armour with rear left and right cameras just add numpad 1 and 3. Just like default freelook keybinds now. It's not fully modeled interiors but it would still increase situational awareness.

[zolop0 10]

This post makes no sense at all.

All of the vehicles are 'feature limited'. How are the tank interiors 'feature limited'? They don't have interiors at all. How does not having an interior mean it doesn't 'work smoothly'?

If you could define what you mean by feature, it would help a lot.

I believe they have said that the tanks will not have interiors again, as there is effort better spent in other areas.

I hope they do the same and work on the other parts of the game that are more relevant to the aspects of simulating combat. I'd rather see more of what ACE did to Arma 2 CO, in terms of evolving the game to the modern military (Chem lights, weapon resting, Mid air refueling, EASA, backblasts, concussion blast, merging clips_no instant merging clips when reloading, etc) than work on the interiors of tanks to the point where its super realistic. As far as I know this is not mean't to be a tank game, nor a flying game, but they still put in a really good effort to simulate what they can in those areas. For example, tanks having the Shtora infrared ATGM jamming system, is something that is much more useful than having super realistic interiors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90

Warning lights for lock-ons (pilots) and SAM indicators for pilots are needed much more though, similar to how ACE does it. If we can fly aircraft, countermeasures are required. Though Operation Arrowhead is good (A combination of ACE and OA would be the best sccenario), much better than vanilla arma 2 had (no radar nor countermeasures).

Edited June 9, 2012 by zolop0

[Mr. Charles 22]

Modellers do not program countermeasure systems. They model Models. And while they're at it they can model tank interiors.