General Discussion (dev branch)

[jone_kone 158]

28 minutes ago, Strike_NOR said:

 

I have to say that I was also surprised to find out that the commander could not use FFV - at first.... Then it struck me. Who in gods earth would ever opt to use their rifle or binocular from the exposed turret hatch, when you can safely hide inside the steel beast and use way more powerful armament and optics. It does not make any sense at all. The only scenario I can imagine you would want to turn out is to get a better all-around view when maneuvering in tight spaces - outside of combat. Besides that, maybe if you are forced to abandon your vehicle in combat, and face close enemies while climbing out of the hatch - which rarely happens and is not needed in arma since "get out" skips the process of climbing out alltogether and just plops you down next to the vehicle.

 

For modders, however, it makes perfect sense if you are using older equipment. Pre-modern conflicts didn't see the likes of RCWS or highly advanced optics, therefore turning out to use binocs or grabbing your M3 greasegun trying to mow down incoming sappers or Anti-tank grenadiers are daily work duties.

 

:)

Actually... to my knowledge its standard tactics for tank commanders to go on foot to recon firing positions and to be turned out in low threat environments. Also ffv would make for more fun gameplay as the crew could defend an immobilized tank.

[wattywatts 76]

5 hours ago, twistking said:

from the videos i saw, it appeared to me, that neither of the new vehicles offer the possibility to fire personal weapons or use binoculars when being turned out (FFV).

 

Firing from vehicles was actually planned and configured, unfortunately it collides with the content licensing system, thus it was switched off. Once we manage to bypass this issue, FFV should be enabled again.

 

EDIT: since there seem to be some confusion, to put it more simply:

Spoiler

Even those who don't have the DLC could get inside the premium vehicles as gunner and/or commander.

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by wattywatts

[Recker Jackson 3]

Can you add showcase for new tanks dlc ? pls 

[lex__1 422]

RPG-7 was released on Apex. Is it possible to enter into the framework of DLS Tanks, an extension of this AT?

- Rockets Arsenal for RPG-7

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T121841

- Optiks for RPG-7

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T121840

- Bipod for RPG-7

https://feedback.bistudio.com/T121842

 

 

[darkChozo 133]

I've been looking at launcher configs, and I noticed that the Vorona is extraordinarily heavy, at 200 for the launcher plus 100 per rocket. For reference, most launchers are 100 + 60-80, with the Titan Compact being the previous AT heavyweight champion at 120+100.

 

I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but it feels a little weird that it's so much heavier than any other launcher in the game. Plus, it's already kind of a worse version of the Titan, so it feels a bit excessive for it also to be a 25-40% heavier system.

[snakeplissken 96]

I noticed that some APC vehicles has a very strong explosion, from which it can explode any vehicle next to it, being an APC or an MBT.

 

Only the APC "FV-720", "BTR-K Kamysh" and "AWC Nyx Recon" demonstrate that it does not have this problem.

 

All MTB from what I've seen, does not have this problem either.

 

*I can not tell if this already existed before the DLC Tanks, but it was joking with the new armored ones that I realized this.

 

Ticket > https://feedback.bistudio.com/T127902

 

 

[Strike_NOR 898]

6 hours ago, darkChozo said:

Plus, it's already kind of a worse version of the Titan, so it feels a bit excessive for it also to be a 25-40% heavier system.

 

 

To me there is something really wrong here that needs to be revisited.

 

The Metis-M (which Vorona is based on) is a heavy AT system that is designed to be launched from a tripod/platform.

A typical team consists of two soldiers, one carrying the platform and launcher+launch control unit, the other carrying additional two launchers for a total of three missiles. In the current devbranch version, I couldn't see a heavy AT assistant/ammo carrier, which is strange. The current heavy AT soldier has two launchers instead of 1 + tripod, which is OK I guess. However, he should get an assistant to carry more ammo.

 

What is so utterly strange is that the more advanced, top attack sporting titan AT seems super lightweight. The AT soldier has a whopping 3 missiles at his disposal. Two AT missiles and one HE/Frag. If we compare both missiles, the Vorona and Titan AT both have dual HEAT warheads (tandem), but the Vorona is at a huge disadvantage of not being able to perform top attack. This means that the Titan AT is theoretically better at defeating armor, and has 1 extra slot for ammo compared to Vorona.

 

Now since HEAT doesn't act like real life in ArmA, this can be compensated by giving different splashdamage values to artificially balance the weapons. But I haven't looked under the hood at these values yet.

 

My point is:

 

Why chose vorona, if CSAT already has Titan AT?

 

Why not add Vorona ammo assistant?

 

Why not add Vorona AP (He/frag thermobaric) ammo alternative?

 

Why not add a Static Vorona launcher?

 

Is the Titan loadout overpowered?

 

If HEAT shaped charge jets were simulated, these weapons would better balance in accordance to their RL counterparts.

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Dev 1.81.144446

 

Problem with LOD on one of the carrier parts (part 6)

 

 

script error on door interactions of the carrier:

 

[jone_kone 158]

 

Here is a really good idea. If not possible to add a NATO tank, it would be really nice to have a reskin the AAF Kuma MBT to a NATO skin? Atleast olive and maybe sand? :)

 

[Ex3B 266]

2 hours ago, snakeplissken said:

I noticed that some APC vehicles has a very strong explosion, from which it can explode any vehicle next to it, being an APC or an MBT.

 

I noticed it too. The very first thing I did after the branch DL completed, was do a firing range against 6 marids next to each other. I was surprised when after striking one, all 6 blew up. I did my subsequent tests with the vehicles more spread out +1

 

 

37 minutes ago, jone_kone said:

 

Here is a really good idea. If not possible to add a NATO tank, it would be really nice to have a reskin the AAF Kuma MBT to a NATO skin? Atleast olive and maybe sand? :)

 

 

+1, but also: add the NATO sand textures for the gorgon and the strider:

This is already in the game, but "hidden

And while we are at it... FINISH THE GREEN SKINS FOR NATO PACIFIC VEHICLES!!!

It was shameful that Apex came out and the Nato faction didn't even get a retexture for the jungle environment (CSAT did, wtf?)

Now they have fixed that omission for the armored vehicles, and even added jungle camo net skins for the AAF, BUT THE JOB IS ONLY HALF FINISHED!!!

Nato Hunters and all HEMMT variants still don't have a suitable texture.

Also, the new Nato Pacific green does not match the Prowler's green skin.

 

They really need to get their texture artist to sit down and do some retexturing. Finish the Apex jungle retextures that we've been owed for a long time, and pay it back with interest... ie some AAF-> Nato retextures (such as the Kuma, and pacific nato skins for the strider and Gorgon).

I wouldn't mind a new jungle camo option for the AAF strider either, but that requires more work than a simple retexture, as there is no camo net model for the strider.

 

This is the last update, and if the Nato pacific skins are still incomplete... well then that's shameful half-assery.

[Beagle 684]

12 hours ago, jone_kone said:

Actually... to my knowledge its standard tactics for tank commanders to go on foot to recon firing positions and to be turned out in low threat environments. Also ffv would make for more fun gameplay as the crew could defend an immobilized tank.

That was standard tactic for armoured recon sections in the 90's, but never for MBT commanders. With the introduction of better optics, TI and independent commander periscopes the whole, "on footW and binocular thing turned out obsolete very fast. Today you have crewa stare onto TFT monitors for hours and instead of disembarking for visual recon you send a small and cheap drone. There are now vehicles in existence that deploy drones automatically. Again, modern and future settings makes games more boring.

 

PS: the most modern IFV come with a build in cooking unit and a toilet... no joke.

 

http://augengeradeaus.net/2011/08/mit-toilette-ein-blick-in-den-boxer

 

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Helicopters with side-facing turrets (Ghosthawk, Huron) should have 

enableSweep = 0;

but currently have

enableSweep = 1;

to prevent them "strafing" forward over targets.

 

same applies for armed Blackfish VTOL with side-mounted guns.

[HaseDesTodes 62]

2 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

In the current devbranch version, I couldn't see a heavy AT assistant/ammo carrier, which is strange.

 

look for

O_Soldier_HAT_F  [Rifleman (Heavy AT)]

and

O_Soldier_AHAT_F [Asst. Heavy AT]

 

(search for "mod tank" in CSAT faction)

[pavel volonsky 44]

The Radar on AWC 301 seems not to be always reliable, especially in the mountains.

[Ex3B 266]

45 minutes ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

Helicopters with side-facing turrets (Ghosthawk, Huron) should have 

enableSweep = 0;

but currently have

enableSweep = 1;

to prevent them "strafing" forward over targets.

 

same applies for armed Blackfish VTOL with side-mounted guns.

Little things like this should have been fixed long ago.

As this is the last DLC, and presumably the last update, we should be B1tching about things like this non-stop under release date!

[wattywatts 76]

2 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

Why chose vorona, if CSAT already has Titan AT?

 

Titan is used by all main factions. As we were making new AT launchers, we primarily wanted to fill the gap and have one unguided launcher, usable for NATO, AAF and all kinds or irregulars. Then we also wanted to give CSAT something new, unique, of their own design, something requiring different approach than RPG or the Titan.

 

2 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

Why not add Vorona ammo assistant?

 

He is there, Assistant Heavy AT.

 

2 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

Why not add Vorona AP (He/frag thermobaric) ammo alternative?

 

It's also in-game, though not in the loadout of the units. You should find the HE missiles in CSAT's Launcher crates.

 

2 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

Why not add a Static Vorona launcher?

 

Static Vorona and SPG-9 were considered, as many of other nice-to-have assets, but with the given resources and deadlines, we had to focus on the high-priority assets.

 

2 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

Is the Titan loadout overpowered?

 

That depends. The damage overhaul is still in progress, so current damage dealt against armor is not final.

The design for (infantry used) Titan is that it has a relatively small warhead and range and is effective against heavy armor only when used in top-down mode. For this you need to lock the target (which needs to be 'hot'), but doing so will alert its crew, giving it a chance to use countermeasures and locate your position.

Vorona has much more powerful warhead and is undetectable, but you need to guide the missile the whole time, exposing yourself.

 

It depends on situation - each launcher has some pros and cons.

[petek 62]

Thanks for the reply wattywatts - liking the DLC overall but always want "mooar" - Static Vorona and SPG-9 would be great if it made it. Would also echo the sentiment that final fixes / textures and NATO Pacific skins I hope are still on the cards at some point.....as well as features that were introduced and removed due to issues...... would love FFV from co-pilot of littlebird to return ..... and whatever did happen to single player Apex???? ;-)

 

Thanks again BIS for keeping me entertained/hopeful/frustrated and appreciative over all these years!

 

[Strike_NOR 898]

23 minutes ago, wattywatts said:

The damage overhaul is still in progress, so current damage dealt against armor is not final.

 

Thanks! I am happy to hear that because the differences at the moment appear insignificant.

 

24 minutes ago, wattywatts said:

It depends on situation - each launcher has some pros and cons

 

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate on your design choices. I agree with your points, while technically the Titan is a passive seeker, and should not reveal its position - it may be a gameplay necessary compromise to give tanks a chance. Any beamrider or laser spot tracker should on the other hand be detectable as these emit energy.

 

27 minutes ago, wattywatts said:

Static Vorona and SPG-9 were considered

 

Copy that.

 

27 minutes ago, wattywatts said:

He is there, Assistant Heavy AT

 

27 minutes ago, wattywatts said:

It's also in-game, though not in the loadout of the units. You should find the HE missiles in CSAT's Launcher crates.

 

2x Oops. Thanks for specifying that :)

 

Maybe I confused the Vorona with MAAWS (light AT) not having assistant? Or im wrong again. :p

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

1 hour ago, wattywatts said:

 

Titan is used by all main factions. As we were making new AT launchers, we primarily wanted to fill the gap and have one unguided launcher, usable for NATO, AAF and all kinds or irregulars. Then we also wanted to give CSAT something new, unique, of their own design, something requiring different approach than RPG or the Titan.

 

 

He is there, Assistant Heavy AT.

 

 

It's also in-game, though not in the loadout of the units. You should find the HE missiles in CSAT's Launcher crates.

 

 

Static Vorona and SPG-9 were considered, as many of other nice-to-have assets, but with the given resources and deadlines, we had to focus on the high-priority assets.

 

 

That depends. The damage overhaul is still in progress, so current damage dealt against armor is not final.

The design for (infantry used) Titan is that it has a relatively small warhead and range and is effective against heavy armor only when used in top-down mode. For this you need to lock the target (which needs to be 'hot'), but doing so will alert its crew, giving it a chance to use countermeasures and locate your position.

Vorona has much more powerful warhead and is undetectable, but you need to guide the missile the whole time, exposing yourself.

 

It depends on situation - each launcher has some pros and cons.

 

ive never had much luck with tank countermeasures. they deploy way too slow to break missile lock

[twistking 204]

2 hours ago, wattywatts said:

[...]

The design for (infantry used) Titan is that it has a relatively small warhead and range and is effective against heavy armor only when used in top-down mode. For this you need to lock the target (which needs to be 'hot'), but doing so will alert its crew, giving it a chance to use countermeasures and locate your position.

Vorona has much more powerful warhead and is undetectable, but you need to guide the missile the whole time, exposing yourself.

[...]

 

i understand and appreciate that you design the assets not only with realism in mind, but also built them to fit a certain role and/or promote a certain playstyle, but i think it is really too unrealistic that a IR-seeker like titan gives a warning, while a beamrider (vorona) does not.

 

maybe just give a warning for every missile/rpg, since titan in "top attack, IR lock" would still be more easily deceived by a smoke screen (loosing lock), while a vorona gunner could still guess the position of the tank behind the smoke.

 

you could also tweak how/when the tank detects the incoming missile. (launch only? incoming missile only / at what range? only burning rocket motor? only when flying higher than certain degree from tank sensor? etc.)

 

with that you could make it a little bit easier to defend against titan comapred to other infantry weapons, while still offering realistic technicality...

[Zygzak191 52]

Yeah, laser warning system would definitely be nice.

[M. Glade 524]

Please replace the overused Offroad 50 cal technicals with these beautiful new Jeep Wranglers with the LIM/M249 for the Apex missions. I'd really love to replay those missions with new juicy juicy content! (if not done already) 

[Ex3B 266]

3 hours ago, wattywatts said:

 

The damage overhaul is still in progress, so current damage dealt against armor is not final.

Its good to see the developers are reading and responding to this thread.

I know what we're seeing so far is a work in progress, and not final, but I fear some things that are lacking will stay lacking.

Could you tell us if the texturing/reskin work is complete or still in progress?

IMO, we have been owed "green" NATO vehicle skins since Apex was released, and this branch fills in most of what was owed... but HEMMTs and Hunters still lack a "green" skin, will this be fixed by release?

The new green Nato skin doesn't match the old green skin of the prowler, will this be looked at (this one is minor).

The Nyx's olive skin fits very well with Nato green, is there any hope of a "sand" skin for it that will fit with Nato forces on Altis?

Now would also be an excellent time to add the Nato Sand skins for the strider and Gorgon to the editor (Its in game for them both, but the Gorgon requires scripting commands).

It would also be very well received if we got nato green skins for the strider and Gorgon (according to the storyline, they are Nato hand-me-downs), and very well received if we got Nato sand and green textures for the Kuma and Mora (I know mods add these, but the answer for everything shouldn't be to install a mod).

 

Only 1 Nyx can be loaded in a blackfish, but it seems like 2 should fit, could this be tweaked?  *see images

Spoiler

So here I put 1 Nyx in a blackfish's cargo, and then moved another Nyx in the editor to see if it could fit

The back of the cargo-hold has a lower ceiling, but that isn't the problem

As you can see, I didn't have the front of the tankette hitting the back of the other:

 

And there was space in the back:

 

So why can't we fit 2 in there?

 

 

@wattywatts also, did you see this? it seems like something that should have been fixed a long time ago, it shouldn't be too hard to slip in this change of a 1 to a 0 in the next build, no?

 

4 hours ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

Helicopters with side-facing turrets (Ghosthawk, Huron) should have 

enableSweep = 0;

but currently have

enableSweep = 1;

to prevent them "strafing" forward over targets.

 

same applies for armed Blackfish VTOL with side-mounted guns.

 

 

[SuicideKing 233]

4 hours ago, wattywatts said:

but doing so will alert its crew

hmm? locking will alert the crew? but isn't it an passive IR seeker?

4 hours ago, Strike_NOR said:

Thanks for taking the time to elaborate on your design choices. I agree with your points, while technically the Titan is a passive seeker, and should not reveal its position - it may be a gameplay necessary compromise to give tanks a chance. Any beamrider or laser spot tracker should on the other hand be detectable as these emit energy.

basically, this.^

In fact, if you want to simulate a missile warning system then i'd argue that perhaps it's better to notify of an incoming missile regardless of seeker, like in the case of aircraft (i.e. no lock warning but incoming missile warning).

 

1 hour ago, twistking said:

since titan in "top attack, IR lock" would still be more easily deceived by a smoke screen (loosing lock)

well, it would depend. I would argue that top attack would suffer less because the tanks deploy the smoke in front. Missiles also break lock if they're approaching the tank from behind, in which case the smoke shouldn't do anything, but iirc oukej said it's in "engine limitation" territory.

 

3 hours ago, fn_Quiksilver said:

ive never had much luck with tank countermeasures. they deploy way too slow to break missile lock

AI seem to use it very well. It's still an issue that IR/visual lock can be attained through thick smoke, when the vehicle isn't visible via either visual or IR camera.

 

Ideally I would like to see the missile break lock if a smokescreen were between the the signature it's locked to, and the missile itself. Maybe something like a raycast or line intersect checked every 200ms or so? I'm way out of my depth here though, no clue how it would be implementable tbh. Don't know if they have the time for this before the DLC launches, either.

[darkChozo 133]

5 hours ago, wattywatts said:

Vorona has much more powerful warhead and is undetectable, but you need to guide the missile the whole time, exposing yourself.

 

I realize that this is probably work-in-progress, but at the moment, the Vorona seems to have a slightly weaker HEAD warhead than the Titan. It has slightly lower hit and indirectHit values, and while I admit Arma's damage system is a little beyond me, this also seems to hold over in my personal testing. Even in direct fire, the Titan AT munition seems to be roughly as strong and perhaps a little stronger than the Vorona HEAT munition.