SalaKrestu 1 Posted June 24, 2012 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. That would look awesome in a triple screen (eyefinity/surround) setup. As a sim hardcore fan I would double my ArmA 3 budget to have detailed cockpits in game. Also, clickable cockpits would be a dream, but I know I'd be asking too much... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr.g-c 6 Posted June 24, 2012 Even ArmA1s predecessor, Operation Flashpoint (now known as ArmA Cold War Assault) had Lovely tank interiors. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j4wJIAOYqk (at 0:19 - only video i could quickly find). No need for super fidelity, but tanks need this for immersion. That ArmA1 haven't had them was "Ok". It was a rushed out inbetween product between OFP and "Game2" (which later became ArmA2), but that ArmA2 didn't had them was really disappointing. Hopefully ArmA3 will be better in this Area. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dm 9 Posted June 25, 2012 Even ArmA1s predecessor, Operation Flashpoint (now known as ArmA Cold War Assault) had Lovely tank interiors. No it didn't, they were low detail, low res and pretty useless - nothing inside was actually functional, you only had a few faked periscopes (and not as many as you should have had in most cases). Pretty strong case of rose-tinted memories here. No need for super fidelity Really... And you're trying to tell me that you wouldn't be first in line to complain about the "shoddy workmanship" and "poor quality" of low detail interiors? but tanks need this for immersion Not really... Periscopes would be too low res to be useful (they would be better served as an array of optics, giving you screen-size vision in all the relevant directions) Any digital maps would be too low res (you'd need to go into a scripted version of the map to get any sort of readable info from it) The amount of effort to make any of the indicators/screens/readouts actually useful is HUGE, and for the amount of info it provides (vs what can be shown in a well designed ui in the optics) is really not worth the effort. Interiors are a HUGE amount of effort for such a tiny little gain as to be completely not worth it. Not to mention trying to get reference material for it... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoRailgunner 0 Posted June 25, 2012 Its about what people do feel when they have to drive a (armored) vehicle.... actually many/most players avoid beeing a driver/gunner/commander just because BIS cut out the interior. People want to see at least somekind of authentic view when they sit down without beeing in "weapon sight" mode. Of course some working switches/buttons would be great too but that can be saved for later upgrades/patches. Don't look at this case just from a dev view, perhaps try to play with vehicles which do have somekind of interior and compare the feeling/immersion with vehicles where you just switch into rectangle peepview. I say its 100% worth to make people feel like sitting in a vehicle and not just like "moving around in a black box".... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Timnos 1 Posted June 25, 2012 I refuse to believe that anyone here doesn't want vehicle interiors that look like this - http://dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/2a4interior.jpg C'mon, it looks incredible, this would be pure perfection to have it in ArmA3. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PuFu 4591 Posted June 25, 2012 it is NOT a matter of who wants, but rather who understands what it takes to make such an entirior vs the gameplay gains. referances for armor is nth time harder to get that exterior. even hands on and self made photos are not always enough due to restricted fov.... case of point: find me proper ref and technical images for the now canceled bmpt please. or any other rus/european tracked vehicle... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dm 9 Posted June 25, 2012 I refuse to believe that anyone here doesn't want vehicle interiors that look like this -http://dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/2a4interior.jpg C'mon, it looks incredible, this would be pure perfection to have it in ArmA3. Its not that I don't want them, but having made plenty of them myself, I appeciate how long it takes. Making an interior of that quality is at least 2 months worth of work. At least. And thats not including time to gather reference (which, as PuFu correctly points out, is damn near impossible for most modern AFVs). The amount of effort it would take BI to make interiors for all their vehicles (good luck getting reference on the Merkava!) is not worth the effort expendature for the result it would get. Not when once you've fapped over it in the editor for 5 mins you'll then spend the rest of your ingame time glued into an optic. Not to mention the rage they would get for being wrong (as would inevitably happen, since reference material is so hard to come by), I mean, you've seen the "is A3 authentic" thread, right? Every other page there is someone else who bitches about the railgun tank or the Mi-48, its just not worth it for BI to do... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoRailgunner 0 Posted June 25, 2012 Its not about some rivet counting or "tunnel vision" - its about what people/paying customers do like to feel when sitting in A3 vehicle. Till A3/2035 is enough time to change/upgrade/"modernize" actual vehicle interiors. On one hand there is the fictional Mi28-Mi24-Ka50 Hamok and on the other you don't have any creativity and imagination for interiors? Sorry but that sounds more like an cheap excuse not to work on interiors. Maybe its just some overpaid/hyped gamedevs who just make "babies/bastards" but don't care + play with them? Perhaps its not a bad idea after all to lock down or force certain devs to play and use their own stuff ingame..... maybe over the time/years they got too blind to see what is important, what does matters playing + enjoying a game like A2OA/A3? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Timnos 1 Posted June 25, 2012 case of point: find me proper ref and technical images for the now canceled bmpt please. or any other rus/european tracked vehicle... Its not that I don't want them, but having made plenty of them myself, I appeciate how long it takes.Making an interior of that quality is at least 2 months worth of work. At least. And thats not including time to gather reference (which, as PuFu correctly points out, is damn near impossible for most modern AFVs). Fair enough, you both make legitimate points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dm 9 Posted June 25, 2012 its about what people/paying customers do like to feel when sitting in A3 vehicle. Trust me, you don't pay enough for the game to justify the development time. maybe over the time/years they got too blind to see what is important, what does matters playing + enjoying a game like A2OA/A3? Maybe its the other way around? Maybe the "feeling" you get when staring at the interior of a vehicle for the first 5 seconds of a mission isnt actually that important to actual gameplay? Can you honestly tell me that you spend more time looking at the non-functional interior of a vehicle than you do looking through its optics? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoRailgunner 0 Posted June 25, 2012 It's just simple: people want to feel operating a vehicle and not beeing glued/stuck into somekind of optics/peephole. They want to see through those small periscopes and see some of the interior. Mostly they are only starring through optics if there is a reason to do so. Even if all the switches/buttons where functional - do you honestly think that people would switch/press them all the time? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Messiah 2 Posted June 25, 2012 its about what people/paying customers do like to feel when sitting in A3 vehicle. Problem solved maybe over the time/years they got too blind to see what is important, what does matters playing + enjoying a game like A2OA/A3? For an infantry sim, they seem to be pretty dead on to what is important. I call BS on anyone who claims they'll spend serious ingame time looking at a static and featureless interior of a tank. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoRailgunner 0 Posted June 25, 2012 Messiah people do appreciate the interior view + feeling of it and of course the look through those small periscopes to get a authentic/"better" overview. Of course we could discuss which functions should work and which would be nice to have.... But at least BIS could try to make people happier with working periscopes. Btw how do you feel sitting as passenger in the back of an vehicle that would have no texture/details and is static/featureless? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Messiah 2 Posted June 25, 2012 I suspect that 'people, people, people' is more akin to 'me, me, me' in this situation. Messiah people do appreciate the interior view + feeling of it I think my picture demonstarted it quite nicely, once you've looked at the cramped interior where it's fairly impossible to see anything of value or get any information, you're going to go into periscope or 3rd person view and remain there. Btw how do you feel sitting as passenger in the back of an vehicle that would have no texture/details and is static/featureless? How much time do you honestly spend as a passenger in the back of a featureless vehicle? If the missions you play involve you driving around the map for hours on end just sitting as a passenger in the back of the vehicle, I think you may have missed the point of ArmA (I jest :) ). At any rate, I spend the time in 3rd person enjoying the view, or making a cup of tea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr.g-c 6 Posted June 25, 2012 No it didn't, they were low detail, low res and pretty useless - nothing inside was actually functional, you only had a few faked periscopes (and not as many as you should have had in most cases). Pretty strong case of rose-tinted memories here.Really... And you're trying to tell me that you wouldn't be first in line to complain about the "shoddy workmanship" and "poor quality" of low detail interiors? Not really... Periscopes would be too low res to be useful (they would be better served as an array of optics, giving you screen-size vision in all the relevant directions) Any digital maps would be too low res (you'd need to go into a scripted version of the map to get any sort of readable info from it) The amount of effort to make any of the indicators/screens/readouts actually useful is HUGE, and for the amount of info it provides (vs what can be shown in a well designed ui in the optics) is really not worth the effort. Interiors are a HUGE amount of effort for such a tiny little gain as to be completely not worth it. Not to mention trying to get reference material for it... Well for the "low quality" of OFPs Vehicles i found the interiors well fitting. Wasnt even the cannon moving inside the M1 Abrams? Or was this Kinghomers M1Ax ? What i loved most about it, was that when i was the commander in an Abrams, i could look all around outside through these little widows in my hatch, i also could look left below me and saw the gunner. For me it was immersive and breathtaking, like in a full blown Tank simulation. Period. :-) I want that immersive feeling back, even if its later with a larger patch or anything. Give them modelers something to do after release (don't take it seriously haha) I know that its hard to make, even harder when you want to do it in matching quality to the outsides of the vehicles and even way more harder for future Tanks. It would be just the icing on the cake and i bet the press is noticing this in a positive way too. I remember in German ArmA2 articles they did not criticizing the missing interiors, but they were at least surprised that there were none, so this was kind of a non-fulfilling expectation. In ArmA1s nightmare release they clearly written it as "a step back from its predecessor". Such things make the game complete and probably worth a few percent in the ratings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flash Thunder 10 Posted June 25, 2012 I don't expect fully rendered vehicle interiors but I do expect something more then a crap overlay like whats in the current M1 Abrams tank. Mainly though BIS please just focus on getting the Physics of the vehicles as realistic as possible in a game. As long as they feel right and don't float or get stuck on little rocks I'll be happy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoRailgunner 0 Posted June 25, 2012 Messiah its no about "me me me", its just if you order people to get into vehicles they kinda try all tricks not to be a crewmember, just a passenger switching to 3rd or switching to desktop, minding their own business until someone calls them back. Reason is that no one really likes to be glued to this limited peephole view in driver/gunner/commander seat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
reconditioned 3 Posted June 25, 2012 I would also love to see more vehicle interiors. Looking at A3 footage available from e3 we can see that interiors are done nicely for the armoured car shown. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate but the option to look around inside and at your crew members would just add more immersion. We want to feel like crew operating the tank not the tank itself. Anyway from what I have seen so far I am very excited for Arma3s release interiors or no interiors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Messiah 2 Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) Messiah its no about "me me me", its just if you order people to get into vehicles they kinda try all tricks not to be a crewmember, just a passenger switching to 3rd or switching to desktop, minding their own business until someone calls them back. Reason is that no one really likes to be glued to this limited peephole view in driver/gunner/commander seat. If you want to drive the tank, you have to use the periscope If you want to use the main weapon, you have to use the periscope/sight If you want to see the battlefield as the commander, you have to use the periscope (or 3rd person for all of those) It confounds me that people can't see why BIS elected not to create interiors for vehicles where the interior is not visible from the outside - its an utter waste of resources when to use the vehicle effectively, you're not going to look at those interiors at all. And I'll happily call BS on 'immersion' just as quickly - you'll spend 30 seconds admiring what took two months to create, and then switch into one of the aforementioned periscope views to actually be able to use the vehicle you so desperately want interiors for. However, as I've said before, the periscope views certainly need a drastic overhaul, so that we're not nailed down to one forward facing letter box. Some way to use the numpad to switch your view across to another periscope in the cupola. Edited June 25, 2012 by Messiah Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Charles 22 Posted June 25, 2012 I'm not sure in which world that you think sitting in cramped, no field of view or orientation with the outside world, interior is better than using the periscopes or 3rd person. If you want to driver the tank, you have to use the periscope, if you want to use the main weapon, you have to use the periscope/sight, if you want to see the battlefield as the commander, you have to use the periscope (or 3rd person for all of those) - It confounds me that people can't see why BIS elected not to create interiors for vehicles where the interior is not visible from the outside - its an utter waste of resources when to use the vehicle effectively, you're not going to look at those interiors at all. One can take this argument and take it to the extreme. Why do we have fully modelled cockpits in planes and helicopters. Why can't we just have a floating HUD and that's it. You don't look at the controls, while you're flying. All you need is the crosshair to point the static guns and rockets. Why do you have fully modelled APC interiors. One could do it like BF3 and display a hatchet while you're a passenger. Why do we need to have IK on the steering wheels and controls in helicopters. It doesn't matter one bit for gameplay. The magic word here is Immersion and it is very important. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
reconditioned 3 Posted June 25, 2012 Messiah imagine driving a car in Arma 2 without being able to use free look. How about if all the cars and aircraft in Arma2 did not have interiors. Still think it is ok. Why interiors for cars and aircraft but no tanks? A lot of players disable 3rd person. If it is too time consuming to create the vehicle interiors why have BIS already created atleast 2 for the vehicles we have seen so far. Even in Arma2 they did create interiors you can see very briefly when turning in/out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Messiah 2 Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) One can take this argument and take it to the extreme. Why do we have fully modelled cockpits in planes and helicopters. Why can't we just have a floating HUD and that's it. You don't look at the controls, while you're flying. All you need is the crosshair to point the static guns and rockets. Why do you have fully modelled APC interiors. One could do it like BF3 and display a hatchet while you're a passenger. Why do we need to have IK on the steering wheels and controls in helicopters. It doesn't matter one bit for gameplay.The magic word here is Immersion and it is very important. Utter tosh, immersion is just a handy buzz word you're choosing to throw around. It's about weighing up the amount of work for the amount of gain. Refer to my post once more. In order to use the tank, you're very much forced into those periscope views 99% of the time, hence why there's little need to model an interior when you spend so little time viewing it. Cockpits are different as you can quite happily, more so a lot of people prefer to fly the aircraft from the cockpit, hence the cockpit is on show for a significantly higher percentage of time than any tank interior ever will be. Modeling the cockpit in that case makes perfect sense, as you're going to spend so much time looking at it. There's a very obvious difference between the two, I'm surprised you can't see that. Messiah imagine driving a car in Arma 2 without being able to use free look. How about if all the cars and aircraft in Arma2 did not have interiors. Still think it is ok. Why interiors for cars and aircraft but no tanks? A lot of players disable 3rd person. If it is too time consuming to create the vehicle interiors why have BIS already created atleast 2 for the vehicles we have seen so far. Even in Arma2 they did create interiors you can see very briefly when turning in/out. The difference here is that those interiors are visible from the outside, as well as my previous point... I'm perplexed that people can't realise something as basic as those flawed comparisons. (Just a point of note, I'm opposed the notion that was brought up that tank interiors are vital for ArmA to succeed, or whatever other spin on that claim has since come forward - if BIS decide to make tank interiors, I'll be just as happy as the fanatics, I just don't agree that its a key component of A3) Edited June 25, 2012 by Messiah Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maddogx 13 Posted June 25, 2012 Messiah imagine driving a car in Arma 2 without being able to use free look. How about if all the cars and aircraft in Arma2 did not have interiors. Still think it is ok. Why interiors for cars and aircraft but no tanks? A lot of players disable 3rd person. If it is too time consuming to create the vehicle interiors why have BIS already created atleast 2 for the vehicles we have seen so far. Even in Arma2 they did create interiors you can see very briefly when turning in/out. He already explained the difference - unlike cars, planes, helicopters etc., the only time you will see the interior of a tank is when you're not looking through a periscope - which is basically never, unless you've decided to take a nap in it. In other words, when you're actually using a tank, you'll never be looking at the interior. Airplane and helicopter cockpits, on the other hand, are modelled in detail because they will almost always be visible to the pilots. I personally would love to see detailled tank interiors too, but it's hard not to see Messiah's point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Messiah 2 Posted June 25, 2012 He already explained the difference - unlike cars, planes, helicopters etc., the only time you will see the interior of a tank is when you're not looking through a periscope - which is basically never, unless you've decided to take a nap in it. In other words, when you're actually using a tank, you'll never be looking at the interior. Airplane and helicopter cockpits, on the other hand, are modelled in detail because they will almost always be visible to the pilots.I personally would love to see detailled tank interiors too, but it's hard not to see Messiah's point. Or what he said... sometimes I need to work on just being more precise with what I say :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Charles 22 Posted June 25, 2012 Then tell me why we have the Bradley, BMP, BRDM, M113, Stryker, LAV and AAV interiors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
