Missing 3D tank interiors

[Sgt_Sam 10]

3D interiors are a nice idea , But when your driving a tank or apc with it buttoned up how much time would you spend looking at the pretty 3d interior ? I dont think its worth modeling all the interiors for 1. its just a bit of eye candy that wont really get used , 2. when turned in your more concerned about whats happening outside , not whats going on inside. I would rather have multiple periscope views if applicable and a decent 3d periscope.

I have been thinking about a 3d interior for my 432 model , but the same train of thought applies , its a lot of work , a lot of polys and not a huge amount of return , plus then it needs to be scripted to have working gauges ect , In the time it takes me to model the inside i could have made another exterior model of something else.

But that been said some models do need a interior IE; helos , planes and vehicles with windows like trucks because you are more inclined to look around in those. So in short i think BIS have gone the right direction with this , softskins have interiors , Armour has periscopes. And as other people have said , i would rather have more armor than 1 or 2 with interiors i will look at once and say "oh thats nice" and never really look at again.

So rock on BIS give us more toys please lol

[Mirudes 1]

We can not have Tank Interiors , because the series is infantry centric. :p

How about to leave out the cockpits of the helicopters and the planes? :o

[Sandy* 10]

We can not have Tank Interiors , because the series is infantry centric. :p

How about to leave out the cockpits of the helicopters and the planes? :o

Helicopters/planes don't have small viewports you have to stick your eyes into, you have to "see through the cockpit". Are you going to complain that we don't have 3D gunner camera viewports?

For tanks the 3D interiors are just extra fluffiness to add immersion, it adds less to gameplay than with planes/helos. Arrowhead's Bradley had that nice 3D viewport thing - BI could still just make 3D viewports instead of modelling the entire interior.

[jumpinghubert 49]

How about to leave out the cockpits of the helicopters and the planes? :o

sometimes the sarcastic way is the most effective one.

[Leader 0]

Full vehicle interiors are a joke and waste of time.

Red Orchestra 2 still only has 2 vehicles because they were fully modeled. Not worth it at all. Drive first person with the black window view or don't. I'm all for quality, but saying you need modeled interiors for a driver and gunner position is being ridiculous.

Totally agree.

[Minoza 11]

Yay, its this thread again...

There is a minimum amount of quantity required for the game to work tho. Or would you rather one of these situations:

1. All 3 sides in the game use the same pool of vehicles?

or

2. One side in the game has the only APC model, the other has the only MBT model, and the 3rd has the only normal truck model?

This, exactly. They need to ensure that all 3 sides have a balanced array of equipment, so there is a bare minimum number of models to achieve.

But that means that one side has to go without a vehicle? Is it cool that Blue and Red forces get an MBT, but Green dont?

Yes, and the community asserts that BI should do a lot of things (that aren't necessarily a requirement).

I would be willing to bet that if BI added some stats counter to the game, which logged and reported how much time was spent in 1st person vs in optics when inside an MBT, I would be 100% sure that 0.001% of the total player time would be spent in 1st person view, and 99.999% of total player time would be spent in optics. Making the interiors a huge waste of effort on their behalf for very little gameplay reward.

Wait wait what?! What is the difference between current vehicle counterparts anyways? You operate them all in the same way... I'd be fine if both sides used same vehicle for the starter. I don't just want 3d interiors, I want functional 3d interiors, which would make those vehicles different to operate, thus giving feeling of variety and challenge. As it is currently, it really doesn't make any difference, they all feel the same but time was spent to make them appear different on visual side, why? In the end, we have double the time invested into making them while they feel and operate the same, is that logical to you?

[dm 9]

Wait wait what?! What is the difference between current vehicle counterparts anyways?

Can you imagine the IFF difficulties if all 3 sides used the same MBT, APC and MRAP?

If the only thing that differentiated them from each other was the colour/pattern of their camo scheme. A pattern which, beyond ~200m renders as one blob of average-coloured pixles.

You would be the first to complain that "I cant tell the difference between enemy and friendly vehicles, we need more models BIS!"

You operate them all in the same way...

This is such a strawman argument. In any MBT you operate it by aiming at the enemy vehicle through the optics. Aside from the shape of the controller and the position of the buttons on the controller, they all (in real life) work the same [or incredibly similar]. Since we dont have any option for controllers other than a mouse and keyboard, I would suggest that BI be better served putting maximum effort into the optics and FCS of each tank (so that they have some unique function) rather than some pointless eyecandy interior.

Honestly, list for me 5 items of functionality that could ONLY be achieved through a fully modeled interior for an MBT.

[blu3sman 11]

This turned out to be a very bad joke.

[jumpinghubert 49]

This turned out to be a very bad joke.

thats the next logical step and you can put in all the little nice "arguments" against tank interieur. The next step in the direction quantity vs quality...lol. Whats the next news? Cancelling the toh-flightmodel?

[Vigil Vindex 64]

All I feel we have the right to expect from BIS with A3 is that it at least meets or exceeds the previous games. I am sure they will make the right decisions to prioritise what is critical for releasing A3. Plenty of time for extra shiny DLC after release.

[mr burns 132]

Honestly, list for me 5 items of functionality that could ONLY be achieved through a fully modeled interior for an MBT.

Totschlagargument as we´d call it in german - describing something in a way that the only truth is on your side.

I can tell you 5 items of functionality that (honestly could aswell made into the action menu (but it sucks)) would sweeten any tank specific tasks encountered in the game:

1) fixing gun in forward position w/o going "turn out". being gunner in semi-dangerous times, constantly having to rotate into forward position is tedious and not fun

2) animated climbing around in tanks (RO2 like). no more magical *plop* i am the driver now, quite relevant for PvP and general immersion

3) commanders job could be made worthwhile by adding PiP map screen and battalion command software (or whatever they use, just think clickable ToH buttons and more to look at than one friggin telescope-overlay view)

4) (though very far fetched) give even loaders something to do! clickable ToH cockpit in combination with a shell storage, breech loading, etc. etc. (artillery guys would enjoy it too)

5) identifiying inner spall damage by looking at it rather than having magical paperdoll readouts (this one kinda depends on better armor simulation..)

Right now when a crew gets into tanks, they know it´ll be a dull, yet labour intensive commitment. [edit](and i´m not even talking about servers with 3rd person off!)[/edit]

Well known AI ATGM shooting skills (when they shoot you out of thick fog, like 100m before you could actually see the threat) don´t make it more fun either.

The reason we´ve not been seeing more tank´centric user missions in the past is just that there´s almost no incentive to play tanks.

Now please don´t hit my post with the "ArmA is aimed at infantry warfare - vehicles are only there for AI to use" hammer, as it sounds ... old.

ArmA could be much much more than what it is right now. Isn´t this what made the series great, wanting more from it?

At least consider "Tank Interior DLC" - let people vote with their wallets :)

Edited June 23, 2013 by Mr Burns

[purepassion 22]

thats the next logical step and you can put in all the little nice "arguments" against tank interieur. The next step in the direction quantity vs quality...lol. Whats the next news? Cancelling the toh-flightmodel?

Or imagine if we wouldn't get dynamic shadows from every lightsource there is! I would rage so hard!

Seriously though, Arma 2 didn't have fully modelled tank interiors either. And no, you don't have to be afraid and conclude it's some sort of "streamlining" and "balancing" process which is ruining your game. Just take a look at the various Helicopters, M-RAP's and APC's. They have a beautiful interior because they are needed. You can't just get in one of these vehicles as a passenger and then look at a black screen. In a tank, you have your optics to work with.

It was stated quite clearly that it is just a matter of ressources. It was simply not possible to have fully modelled and functioning interiors for tanks. That's what happens in game development and that's what happens in real life. You have to make compromises. There is "nice to have" and then there is "actually possible to make with all the little practical details".

In this case it's either having one fully modelled tank/apc or two different and functioning ones.

In functionality, there would be no difference. Because well, if you look at it from a very practically point of view, what would you do there? Change from HE to SABOT rounds, switch from VS no NV to TH mode? RtT viewports? RtT is too ressource heavy to have a image that would satisfy in such a situation. Start the engine? There won't be any complex start-up manoevers. Practically none of these switches you're looking at would be usable and it wasn't so in Arma 2. The realism didn't suffer. Arma is not Steelbeast and has never been.

These interiors would only make it a little more immersive.

But you know what also creates a big deal of immersion? Sound.

The main concern I have when it comes to warmachines like tanks, is that it shouldn't feel like you are the tank when you are using it in the game. You are not the tank. You are controlling a human, sitting there and operating a machine consisting of tons of steel and electronics. Recieving feedback that it's actually a machine creates this feeling. You don't have to fiddle around in a freelok camera, and try to aim at a specific tiny button to switch your optics to thermal. Just let there be the sound of that button clicking.

This sort of audible feedback should be implemented for practically every action such as zooming with the optics etc and I will guarantee you operating these machines will feel much more immersive, even without fully modelled interiors for drivers and gunners.

[Sandy* 10]

Totschlagargument as we´d call it in german - describing something in a way that the only truth is on your side.

I can tell you 5 items of functionality that (honestly could aswell made into the action menu (but it sucks)) would sweeten any tank specific tasks encountered in the game:

1) fixing gun in forward position w/o going "turn out". being gunner in semi-dangerous times, constantly having to rotate into forward position is tedious and not fun

2) animated climbing around in tanks (RO2 like). no more magical *plop* i am the driver now, quite relevant for PvP and general immersion

3) commanders job could be made worthwhile by adding PiP map screen and battalion command software (or whatever they use, just think clickable ToH buttons and more to look at than one friggin telescope-overlay view)

4) (though very far fetched) give even loaders something to do! clickable ToH cockpit in combination with a shell storage, breech loading, etc. etc. (artillery guys would enjoy it too)

5) identifiying inner spall damage by looking at it rather than having magical paperdoll readouts (this one kinda depends on better armor simulation..)

What you're describing really reminds me of DCS's take on flight sims. Very detailed, interactive interiors. It's a very cheap solution as well - for a 50€ game you get one (1) simulated aircraft ;).

The reason we´ve not been seeing more tank´centric user missions in the past is just that there´s almost no incentive to play tanks.

Now please don´t hit my post with the "ArmA is aimed at infantry warfare - vehicles are only there for AI to use" hammer, as it sounds ... old.

ArmA could be much much more than what it is right now. Isn´t this what made the series great, wanting more from it?

But 3D interiors are mostly just graphical fluff. If you're talking about making Arma a vehicle sim of some sort then that's resources taken away from all the regular OFP/Arma style things.

[dm 9]

1) fixing gun in forward position w/o going "turn out". being gunner in semi-dangerous times, constantly having to rotate into forward position is tedious and not fun

Yes, a Take On style clickable switch would be good for this. As would a hotkey on the keyboard.

No point.

2) animated climbing around in tanks (RO2 like). no more magical *plop* i am the driver now, quite relevant for PvP and general immersion

They don't do this for the vehicles that currently have interiors modeled, let alone ones that dont.

This is a system that would require quite some extra development by the devs (rather than just the artists adding interiors).

No point.

3) commanders job could be made worthwhile by adding PiP map screen and battalion command software (or whatever they use, just think clickable ToH buttons and more to look at than one friggin telescope-overlay view)

Yes, I could see this. The problem is (as I "discussed" with legendkiller back in one of his derpy threads) that the PiP screen ingame would be too small (in terms of overall screen resolution) to be of any actual use. You would have to switch into the full-screen 2D map for it to actually be legible.

Example: even if the PiP screen took up 70% of your visible interior area (making the rest of the interior rather... superfluous) it would still, on the average 24" monitor @native res of 1920*1200 only be ~1000 x 600 of actually usable map-space. I just dont think it would really work that well.

For instance - the moving maps we [bAS] added to the MH-60 and MH-47's only showed you a very approximate (due to the size of the map) location, which was achievable because it was marked with map-width crosshairs. Replace that with 3x3 pixel markers and its not really that usable...

I'll give you the point on that tho, could be quite nice if there is enough resolution to use.

4) (though very far fetched) give even loaders something to do! clickable ToH cockpit in combination with a shell storage, breech loading, etc. etc. (artillery guys would enjoy it too)

Not without significant programmer effort in developing the functionality needed.

No point.

5) identifiying inner spall damage by looking at it rather than having magical paperdoll readouts (this one kinda depends on better armor simulation..)

The vehicles ingame which do have interior modelled dont even do this. So not without significant programmer effort in developing the functionality needed.

No point.

One out of 5. Try again plz.

Now please don´t hit my post with the "ArmA is aimed at infantry warfare - vehicles are only there for AI to use" hammer, as it sounds ... old.

ArmA could be much much more than what it is right now.

Definitely not, I'm a tank fanatic, and would love to see these things. I'm just a realist. BI has like 10 programmers working on the functionality for A3, and they're already way too busy to deal with the current tech, let alone implement a bunch of complex new systems.

Isn´t this what made the series great, wanting more from it?

What made the series great was always the engine and what you could do with it. Never the core content that came with the game.

Adding interiors (tho not to the level of complexity you list above) is already possible in the engine. BI chooses not to do it for MBTs because the amount of gameplay reward is not worth the effort needed to create them, for a system where you spend 99.99% of your time in optics anyway...

Edit to add:

As I've said before, if interiors are SO important to tanks, why have we not seen any community addons for A2 add tanks with them?

Surely, if they were that important to the tanking aspect of the game, we would see every tank addon released comes with an interior model, yet none do?

Indicative of the effort/reward balance? I think so...

Edited June 23, 2013 by DM

[mr burns 132]

What you're describing really reminds me of DCS's take on flight sims. Very detailed, interactive interiors. It's a very cheap solution as well - for a 50€ game you get one (1) simulated aircraft ;).

If one interior for one vehicle really is so hard to make, consider "One Tank Interior DLC" for each vehicle, with the first one as pilot to see if it makes enough money to warrant for further such DLC'.

But 3D interiors are mostly just graphical fluff. If you're talking about making Arma a vehicle sim of some sort then that's resources taken away from all the regular OFP/Arma style things.

As said, all of it could be made into the action menu - the listed gameplay enhancing aspects (the ones you neglect) stay the same.

[Sandy* 10]

As said, all of it could be made into the action menu - the listed gameplay enhancing aspects (the ones you neglect) stay the same.

But you didn't list any 3D-interior specific gameplay enhancements apart from the PiP screens - I don't see the point of wasting resources in such unless BIS were developing a tank sim.

Edit: And to agree with DM, yeah, all of these things would be so nice to have, but they just aren't reality for Arma.

[mr burns 132]

One out of 5. Try again plz.

No way, you destroyed me. Happily taking that 1outof5 :o

Definitely not, I'm a tank fanatic, and would love to see these things. I'm just a realist. BI has like 10 programmers working on the functionality for A3, and they're already way too busy to deal with the current tech, let alone implement a bunch of complex new systems.

What made the series great was always the engine and what you could do with it. Never the core content that came with the game.

Adding interiors (tho not to the level of complexity you list above) is already possible in the engine. BI chooses not to do it for MBTs because the amount of gameplay reward is not worth the effort needed to create them, for a system where you spend 99.99% of your time in optics anyway...

Edit to add:

As I've said before, if interiors are SO important to tanks, why have we not seen any community addons for A2 add tanks with them?

Surely, if they were that important to the tanking aspect of the game, we would see every tank addon released comes with an interior model, yet none do?

Indicative of the effort/reward balance? I think so...

I understand your point, considering you have much more insight, i´d be stupid to argue with you. However i cannot accept the community mod equasion.

Back in BWMod times, everytime i suggested something with tank interiours it would be shrugged off, for the same reasoning you mention.

But the only trait mods have which developers don´t is time - sheer endless time. As long as motivation doesn´t go bust.

They don´t have the source code, they don´t have the source models, sometimes they don´t even have the right tools to work with.

... and now i was about to crush your "effort/reward relation", until thoughts came to the point where mods rather release 10 vehicles w/o interiours instead of one fully modeled one ...

*Mr Burns surrenderd*

[jumpinghubert 49]

@PurePassion

thanks for your reply. I like this game still without tank interieur but i am a little bit worried about the old statement from maruk https://twitter.com/maruksp/status/233271785871781888.

Sorry for offtopic, but do you have any news related to the toh-flightmodel in a3, maybe as an option for custom utilization?

edit: ok I found the sad info: http://simhq.com/wp/day-2-simhq-at-e3-2013/

Edited June 23, 2013 by JumpingHubert

[das attorney 858]

They should just perfect human cloning and clone 4 more Steve Kennedy's ;)

Joking aside, if they don't have time/resources, then that's just the way it is.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Edit: And to agree with DM, yeah, all of these things would be so nice to have, but they just aren't reality for Arma.

But that were reality with OFP. Like a few other things.

[purepassion 22]

@PurePassion

thanks for your reply. I like this game still without tank interieur but i am a little bit worried about the old statement from maruk https://twitter.com/maruksp/status/233271785871781888.

Well that quote is taken quite out of context for this discussion ^^ It was from Codemasters regarding one of their new racing games. Yes, that is correct, a racing game which has nothing but cars and doesn't even have the cockpits for those cars... :rolleyes:

But that were reality with OFP. Like a few other things.

Yes, yes they were... If something like that would show up instead of a viewport, that would be a reason to complain! :D

Edited June 23, 2013 by PurePassion

[ProfTournesol 956]

Yes, yes they were... If something like that would show up instead of a viewport, that would be a reason to complain! :D

But if you show the exterior part of the tank, you would show the same quality level. But at that time the main words weren't "infantry simulator" nor "streamlined gameplay". Anyway, i don't want to beat the dead horse.

Edited June 23, 2013 by ProfTournesol

[fraczek 4]

At least the switchable viewports please pleeease? I don't need to click things in tanks or have a visible interior at all, but driving and situational awareness with only one viewport (straight ahead) while the gunner's cupola has 360 coverage (and Marid driver's cupola has much almost 180 degree coverage, and all APCs have a rearward facing reversing camera modelled) is bad. Just something simple with Look Left / Look Right keys switching through viewports...

[purepassion 22]

But if you show the exterior part of the tank, you would show the same quality level. But at that time the main words weren't "infantry simulator" nor "streamlined gameplay". Anyway, i don't want to beat the dead horse.

At that time it was possible because these models and textures don't require as much work as something as sophisticated you would expect today.

@fraczek, having multiple viewports you can switch between is an outstanding easy and effective idea! :)

[ProfTournesol 956]

At that time it was possible because these models and textures don't require as much work as something as sophisticated you would expect today.

Indeed. Quality over quantity.