How important are cockpits, crew stations and vehicle interiors in games?

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

The completely black screen with a gloryhole in it is rather bland. Can it not be like a 3d scope with a simple cockpit texture behind it?

[Macadam Cow 1]

Personnally, the first time I've really enjoyed playing exclusively in 1st person view was in DCS A-10C.

Not only because the cockpit was made up to a level almost never seen before but mainly due to their brilliant 6DOF implementation.

It all nice to have HI-Fi cockpit with clickable switch but what's the point if you're totally unable to look at what you want to look at?

That was my experience with ToH and its crappy 6DOF (sorry BIS). Actually this is probably one of the main reason why I've never enjoyed flying in ToH.

It felt like you were a bowling ball sitting on a road cone, don't know how to exactly explain that but I'm still mad at BIS for screwing up such an important aspect of flight sim.

I'm glad BIS finally changed their minds about vehicles interior, this was really a step back since ofp.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

It felt like you were a bowling ball sitting on a road cone, don't know how to exactly explain that but I'm still mad at BIS for screwing up such an important aspect of flight sim.

I thought I was the only one that noticed. Also the vehicle isn't the correct scale for the AI. Notice that when you look left from the pilots seat you get an eyeful of the door frame? The eye position is too high. This carried over into A3 - the NVGs on the players stick through the top of the cockpit on the MH-9 / AH-9? Something isn't right with the seat position / scale?

[FallujahMedic -FM- 867]

I thought I was the only one that noticed. Also the vehicle isn't the correct scale for the AI. Notice that when you look left from the pilots seat you get an eyeful of the door frame? The eye position is too high. This carried over into A3 - the NVGs on the players stick through the top of the cockpit on the MH-9 / AH-9? Something isn't right with the seat position / scale?

So, I'm not crazy then! Many things seem to be that way. Can't give any evidence though, just a "feeling". Oh, yes I can, the LHD in A2. I've been on LPD's and LPH's when in the Navy and they are bigger than that. Maybe the eye height or players stride is what alters the perception of distance, I dont know.

[andersson 285]

I stopped playing with tanks when armed assault came. OFP interiors werent realistic or good but they worked. I lost a lot of immersion and me and my brain dont like to get stuck in one view only. I also had better overview without turning out as I could use the other viewports for a wider view than optics.

It's strange but I could "rest" in OFP in a long tank session by just getting away from the optics and look inside the turret. When I'm stuck in optics I must look away from the monitor do get the same mental rest, or turn out but that can be fatal...

I never play in 3d mode, doesnt matter if it's BIS games, simulators, car games, FPS or what not, so things like interiors are very important. They dont have to be perfect.

Edited June 26, 2013 by andersson

[nodunit 397]

Depends on what you veiw as important and what it is for. Does it function, is it pure eye candy, does it play to gameplay or balance in some form, does it allow you to do things you otherwise wouldn't be able to?

When it comes to interiors you have to think of what the overall goal, in terms of first person an interior can actually contribute to a form of reality and balance. Even if you cannot interact with the interior itself, even if it nothing more than a blackened shell with view ports open to where the periscopes are then you are creating a difference between all of these various vehicles. For example the old T-72 vs M1A1 in OFP, you have either the single view port or the abrams three, giving the driver a wider FOV. Command cupola's, allowing for rotation in some cases and static position in others.

It also forces more crew awareness and communication if there is no all seeing radar present, IE the only way to locate targets is to spot and track them. However I honestly would NOT want to see such a thing in any of the Arma games, reason being is that sure that sounds nice but when even MBT's are so pathetically weak against any AT weapon would only screw over the crewman and make tanks even less threatening and significant for an asset.

Ultimately I would say interiors are only as important as you make them, a functioning one can be very immersing but when you have a HUD at all times telling you the exact information then it serves little purpose to have systems in place for the interior to display that in some way.

For example the wheeled vehicle class with functioning gauges, they add a nice touch to the immersion but which are you watching more often to monitor your speed? The HUD or the gauge?

Edited June 27, 2013 by NodUnit

[NoRailgunner 0]

@NodUnit how long can you sit + enjoy the game as driver/gunner/commander in such vehicles with single view port only? As long as you can in vehicles wich do have cockpits/interiors?? Of course if you play in 3rd person view only cockpits/interiors are not so important like a working HUD. Guess sooner or later we will see more and more games "to be played in 3rd person only" just because its more convenient and less stress for publishers/gamedevs. Just claim + promote that players always liked to play games in 3rd person view and that there are also some extra-game-exclusive HUD features.... btw there are good reasons to conduct combined operations/joint operations and not deploying MBT's alone without any support. ;)

[nodunit 397]

...

How long? Not long at all, I absolutely despise the single periscope slit 2D wallpaper that we've had since Arma 2 for most tanks.

I won't lie, I'm not liking the direction A3 is taking, I realize that the game is unfinished but I can't help but eyeball the fact that even APC passengers now don't get an interior to look at on the longstanding of the drives to be highly suspicious. It's a real damn shame too, the primary offset of Arma 2 was the HDR going ape with a fully shadowed interior and Arma 3 has corrected that problem AND improved the lighting overall which means that interiors would be even more amazing.

I suspect we won't be seeing any interiors unless they are needed, you can't use a slitted 2D texture for a very open vehicle such as the wheeled ones, and by this point I'm going to toss in the towel and assume that any interiors we will see shall be created by third party addon developers and even then IF they decide it is worth the work.

Also last I knew MBT's aren't deployed without some form of support :P, though that is a debate over the armor penetration system and is a whole other can of worms.

EDIT: I've heard the arguement said that interiors and cockpits aren't really worth the effort, to that I ask why bother going through the effort at all then? Or why not keep it amazingly simple, with a single flat panel and a rough color scheme, no three dimensional displays or gauges, no functioning displays, none of it. Interiors give a feeling of faction, of unique and depth..for example, of these two images, which pushes you into the scene more, which one makes you feel as though you were more in the game.

http://cubemedia.gamespy.com/cube/image/article/636/636843/star-wars-rogue-squadron-ii-rogue-leader-20050726034000918_640w.jpg

http://www.theisozone.com/images/screens/gamecube-42745-101333003655.jpg

I think cockpits and interiors are only so much as you assign to them, they can be as simple or complex as you make them. Take battlefield 3 for example, the cockpits of their helicopters are astonishingly simple for a game of its date, by comparison even Arma 1 cockpits were much more detailed in texture and model, and Arma 3's UH-80 and RAH-66 just blows them out of the water, it could be a simulator quality by comparison, but why does it have to be that advanced in model and texture?

Furthermore interiors can instill a sense of faction, some subtle or blatant nuance such as visibility, a trade of it for more armor, the way things look, the equipment used, these are all help reinforce the fact that this is a fleshed out vehicle rather than "just another vehicle". Would arma 3's wheeled vehicles feel as unique if they all shared the same interior? Would the kajiman not be as uncomfortable if it didn't literally use the cockpit of an apache with the framework of a havoc?

Edited June 27, 2013 by NodUnit

[Flogger23m 2]

It depends on the game. In a flight sim a proper cockpit is required. In an infantry simulator or tactical shooter first person is required as are all of the appropriate animations.

[sv5000 127]

Flight Sims...Definitely....Aircraft/Helicopters... Yep....

Tanks, not so much for me, if your to busy looking at your 3d fuel gauge, your not watching the road ;)

[NoRailgunner 0]

Think there is no need to be so much in function and working details like one can have in a dedicated flight or tank simulation but at least those silly single slitted 2D viewports should be gone aswell as copy-pasted cockpits. How many gamers would be mad if there are some basic stuff/features implemented to operate vehicles in military games? Guess saying that a military game is "focused on infantry" is just overused by BIS as an universal excuse... one can only hope that someday someone will make just a great milgame/milsim. ;)

[-Snafu- 78]

Comparison:

OFP

A: INQ M1A2

Arma 2

VBS2 2.0

[mr burns 132]

ArmA2 was not all view-slotty, some exceptional APC interiors (prolly same workload as for tanks), i loved M113 alot!

wWZ1Zl1AtPU

[Sniperwolf572 758]

... but I can't help but eyeball the fact that even APC passengers now don't get an interior to look at on the longstanding of the drives to be highly suspicious. ...

Erm, what? All vehicles so far have an interior except for the driver and the gunners in Marid and AMV because they seem to be in separate compartments. You can even see the soldiers inside the Marid from the outside through the windows.

Crappy image quality as I'm on my work laptop.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Sniperwolf572

[Mr. Charles 22]

The Marid compartment seems much nicer and the soldiers heads don't sitck into the roof quite as much :x

[max power 21]

I think what NoRailgunner was saying is that, it doesn´t matter how dashboards look, if tehy´re realistic or not. Designers could simply make their own!

It´s not like knowing how a dashboard looks required a higher science degree ...

In my experience it can be quite difficult to find proper reference.

---------- Post added at 09:03 ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 ----------

how long can you sit + enjoy the game as driver/gunner/commander in such vehicles with single view port only?

Somewhat longer than I can looking at a 3d interior I can't see out of!

[gossamersolid 155]

Somewhat longer than I can looking at a 3d interior I can't see out of!

*cough* BIS' BTR-90 in ArmA 2 *cough*

You have to switch to the 2d view slit mode to see anyways.

[nodunit 397]

Well that is due to screwing up and not making the periscope have a transparent texture or none at all, as opposed the bradley.