Missing 3D tank interiors

[OrLoK 20]

Because projects have a budget...

Because skilled professionals don't work for free.

Because you get what you pay for.

Because when you're asking someone to do something for free, you get what you get, and it takes time / money to keep track of all of these and their commitments / schedules.

Because people who are doing stuff in their spare time are often not able to meet hard deadlines or sometimes even do anything on what they've committed to do.

Not to mention it's questionable to have someone getting paid a decent living doing one job and someone slaving away for no compensation doing the same thing.

It's easy to say 'people will help out'. But how about you? Would you commit every second of your spare time for the next 3 months on a project you a) aren't getting paid for and b) aren't free to define your own timeline / quality / specifications / workflow / ??? and c) other people are getting paid for doing the exact same thing and then they have spare time on top of it?

There is a massive difference between doing a passion project for yourself, and doing work for a company.

Hello there

I would do it for the credit.

In fact I am.

I've been working on several projects for associates / game companies which will benefit them greatly in return for nothing more than a few beers or a free copy of the software or a credit.

I suppose what you mean is that there are not enough skilled professionals willing to work for free, and that's a good explanation.

I think you have come back "at" me in a slightly aggressive way, I don't think you took my original message in the spirit it was meant. I was simply stating that I didn't know the actual reasoning behind not using external assets as other games do sometimes do especially with the wonderful modding community we have. I assumed it would be a bureaucratic reason.

Im not expecting it to happen, but it would be nice.

Rgds

LoK

[jumpinghubert 48]

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...

sry missed the context :p

[Qosmius 10]

i find it really ridicoulous that every vehicle, plane and heli in arma 3 has super detailed interiors with exception of tanks and apcs..really..look at the comanche or ifrit. what more can you ask for a 3d interior? and what do we get for apcs..nothing..lets make a game where all the tank lovers get dissapointed yay..besides apcs are also very weak in current state..even the weakest rpg makes everything red and blows up the vehicle.,no countermasures for vehicles except of smoke?

[Sandy* 10]

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

Yeah if we went back to 2001 with Arma3's graphics we'd definitely have interiors.

Edit:

besides apcs are also very weak in current state..even the weakest rpg makes everything red and blows up the vehicle

NLAW/etc aren't "weak rpgs", and in the real world it would take even less to penetrate such vehicles.

Edited June 23, 2013 by SandyBandy

[Qosmius 10]

i dont understand why every infantry get state of the art anti tank missile launchers then. since we have no lighter anti tank weapons this is the only thing we get that 1 shots every vehicle in the game

[max power 21]

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

They tend to do interiors if it's important to the functioning of the vehicle, or if it's part of the infantry experience. For instance, if you have men in the cargo seat positions, you're going to want to have some kind of view in there. Otherwise, you'd be waiting in blackness with nothing to do. You can't tell me though, that the inside of a tank that you can't even see out of, and aids gameplay in no way, is the same thing as the inside of a troop transport or the cockpit of an aircraft.

---------- Post added at 12:48 ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 ----------

Hello there

I would do it for the credit.

In fact I am.

I've been working on several projects for associates / game companies which will benefit them greatly in return for nothing more than a few beers or a free copy of the software or a credit.

I suppose what you mean is that there are not enough skilled professionals willing to work for free, and that's a good explanation.

I think you have come back "at" me in a slightly aggressive way, I don't think you took my original message in the spirit it was meant. I was simply stating that I didn't know the actual reasoning behind not using external assets as other games do sometimes do especially with the wonderful modding community we have. I assumed it would be a bureaucratic reason.

Im not expecting it to happen, but it would be nice.

Rgds

LoK

There was no aggressiveness intended. When I type I just mean what I mean in plain English and I'm not implying anything. For instance here, when I say 'plain English', I'm not implying you have a problem understanding the English language. I just mean that if you read what I say plainly, you'll probably get an accurate read of my intention.

Also, this forum has reached a state where literally nothing I see being brought up hasn't been said and discussed thoroughly before. This is probably the 5th or 6th time I've contributed to a discussion on the topic of 'why doesn't BI just hire slaves, then we can have all the things with no cost'.

In this industry, you define your own value, more or less. Right now you've defined your value to be $0, which is likely a dramatic under-appraisal.

[scarecrow398 43]

I didn't know the actual reasoning behind not using external assets as other games do sometimes do especially with the wonderful modding community we have. I assumed it would be a bureaucratic reason.

Im not expecting it to happen, but it would be nice.

AFAIK people like Smookie and Celery are in a position like the above, its not to my knowledge or position to know if they're being paid by BIS for their work, but from a outside view it seems like they were picked up by BIS due to their contributions to help stream line Arma 3 and boost the amount of people they have working on the team.

[max power 21]

AFAIK people like Smookie and Celery are in a position like the above, its not to my knowledge or position to know if they're being paid by BIS for their work, but from a outside view it seems like they were picked up by BIS due to their contributions to help stream line Arma 3 and boost the amount of people they have working on the team.

They are.

[OrLoK 20]

Hello there

@Max I think we shall have to agree to disagree. :) Remember though that not all of us spent a vast amount of time here so conversations that have been witnessed over and over again by yourself may not have been seen by others. But I do understand your frustrations as I often encounter similar "repeat" threads and ideas over in the Dayz forums.

Even though I do do much work for no money there are substantial rewards. Being associated with large companies can help ones CV etc etc. And i don't think I've defined my value at £0, but I do think we have seem to have a different outlook on things, which isnt a bad thing.

Lastly slaves? No not slaves rather, recognised contributors.

I think though we'll go round in circles with each other over this :)

@Scarecrow, Yes I'm aware that some have been picked up but like you do not know about their remuneration and official "status". It is good to see regular contributors etc brought on board.

Back on topic: My main beef with having no interior is the lack of "peripheral vision" ie using other periscopes. I'd actually be happy with a generic low detailed interior, but i do understand how that would jar with the great visuals already in game. I think its a shame the interiors are missing but I don't find it a game breaker. Actually having a cockpit is nice for immersion though.

Perhaps a horizontal 180 degree freelook in the tanks periscopes would help? (gameplay wise rather than aesthetically).

Rgds

LoK

[Demongornot 10]

I'm really disappointed about it, when i have first hear about Arma 3 and his new 3D engine, tanks with 3D interior is the FIRST damn thing i have think about cause it will be possible with realistic texture/animation to have it and FINALLY see the beautiful, immerse and impressive inside of a tank, mainly with it firing, finally have something to do while being a loader and maybe interact with mouse with the ammo to load them, lets people discover how its feel like to be in the commander seat of a tank and when no external observation is needed look inside this beautiful machine and finally lets people discover how it feel like to be the driver cause its rare to see this part of the tank.

Its all about realism/immersion and the fact that we have no 3D interior mean that its definitely not possible for Arma to handle 3D cabin/cockpit wish is able to be clicked for have more functions without need 2 keyboard and finally have something better than the most unrealistic vehicle interface/electronic and functionality system for a "realistic" game.

No realistic IR/Laser lock, only an unrealistic arcade lock system, no auto zeroing system wish is ridiculous for a tank who have 30 year and its insane for a tank from the future, leak of possibility, functionality and all this things, i'm bored that the only one game available who claim and pretend to be realistic and be a simulation is finally not much more realistic than other arcade game just cause developers don't want it to be complex just for having more people attracted and forget that difficulty settings its here exactly for this, and maybe half of people who like aircraft/tanks and other stuff like this who will be able to play Arma will not cause of this leak of feature.

Even with a ridiculously too much realistic game, settings can bring it to arcade level and still attract all people like this, but for a software supposed to aim people who want a realistic simulation its a fail and that why Arma its not more know than this, simply cause it don't match with what the first people aim by the game don't find what they want.

Leak of feature is already a cancer but no 3D interior for vehicle mainly for a 2013 game its too much for me, some game handle 3D interior of vehicle for a SINGLE scene who just show it for some seconds, and for a game that we are supposed to see tanks a lot of time and send a lot of time inside no 3D exterior its the worst new i have ever hear of about Arma 3.

Its almost mainly the 3D tank interior that make me want to play Arma 3 cause i'm not the best fan of Arma 2 wish is too more restrictive for player movement and interface and the horrible radio voice.

Even the new Comanche are totally wrong, the real Comanche is know for be the only one combat helicopter that have the pilot in the front seat and the gunner in the rear seat mainly cause with new electronic/optic system the pilot can see with his eyes for flying and the gunner don't need like other old combat helicopter to see target with his eyes cause sensor do better and he have no restriction to find follow/track a target and in Arma 3 i was surprised and disappointed to see the gunner in the front seat...

Or the Stealth Black Hawk, two big problems, first its supposed to be radar stealth, so what both gatling do here mainly without possibility to retract them and close the door its a big error and the real black hawk is know to be audio stealth cause of a blade profile even reproduce on the 3D model of the one in Arma like this one http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/4391005128_b8bfe28f3e.jpg and this picture is from a CIVILIAN helicopter and we know that stealth technology even for noise abatement is 100 year more advanced in military than civilian but in Arma the new "not stealth" black hawk is noisy as hell.

People have even talk about this technology already using for the Vietnam war by the USA and the helicopter was so quiet that we can't hear it when he fly by 20m right over us.

This and the leak of attachment for weapon, the unrealistic bot, the unrealistic wounding system, the leak of bipod/resting, the unrealistic recoil effect, the unrealistic interface and way to use for vehicle, nothing realistic for sniper like no spotting scope, no ballistic table only a zeroing and a "find yourself the distance of the enemy" spotter and other ridiculous leak of feature make me already regret the buy if Arma 3.

I don't think it will change and its sad, so please next time you planed to do an unrealistic/arcade game, avoid to call it a simulation it will lets the possibility for those who really want to create one to do so without think that one already exist.

I'm really disappointed and i hope mods like ACE will fix all this ridiculous leak of feature as possible for make the game playable/enjoyable.

[purepassion 22]

I think having multiple viewports you can switch between, as I can imagine having them all in the same frame could make them quite small, could be a very good solution! In the case of the Patria, it is realistic as it is since it does only have one big viewport. The Nemo APC and T-1000 tank however have multiple viewports. They should all be available and provide as much situational awareness as in reality.

Combining this with proper audio feedback should bring the desired effect, immersion, as well :)

[max power 21]

...

I think you are inter-relating too many things, not the least of which is the tank interior issue is not a rendering / engine issue.

[dm 9]

Aww yiss, I love these "registered 2013 and know exactly how to fix the game" people.

I'm really disappointed about it, when i have first hear about Arma 3 and his new 3D engine

Well you heard wrong then, Arma 3 does not have a new 3D engine, its the same one thats been powering RV since Arma 1.

tanks with 3D interior is the FIRST damn thing i have think about cause it will be possible with realistic texture/animation to have it and FINALLY see the beautiful, immerse and impressive inside of a tank, mainly with it firing

Like I said, this has been possible to the current level of detail since Arma 1, the super shader introduced in Arma 2 helps a lot with extra detail, but that has been around since Arma 2.

fact that we have no 3D interior mean that its definitely not possible for Arma to handle 3D cabin/cockpit wish is able to be clicked for have more functions without need 2 keyboard and finally have something better than the most unrealistic vehicle interface/electronic and functionality system for a "realistic" game.

Lol, "fact" eh. I hate to tell you, but the same technology that drives the high detail interiors for the helicopters and wheeled vehicles is what works for tanks too. So it is completely possible, BI chooses not to do it because its not worth the effort.

no 3D exterior its the worst new i have ever hear of about Arma 3.

Drama queen much?

Even the new Comanche are totally wrong, the real Comanche is know for be the only one combat helicopter that have the pilot in the front seat and the gunner in the rear seat mainly cause with new electronic/optic system the pilot can see with his eyes for flying and the gunner don't need like other old combat helicopter to see target with his eyes cause sensor do better and he have no restriction to find follow/track a target and in Arma 3 i was surprised and disappointed to see the gunner in the front seat...

lol, there is so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin...

1. The Comanche would still be using optical sensors for the gunner, in addition to the radar (which was a modified Longbow system, as found on Apache)

2. The Comanche is not the only helicopter with the pilot in the front seat. Eurocopter Tiger is at least one other aircraft I can think of off the top of my head that has the pilot in the front seat...

This and the leak of attachment for weapon, the unrealistic bot, the unrealistic wounding system, the leak of bipod/resting, the unrealistic recoil effect, the unrealistic interface and way to use for vehicle, nothing realistic for sniper like no spotting scope, no ballistic table only a zeroing and a "find yourself the distance of the enemy" spotter and other ridiculous leak of feature make me already regret the buy if Arma 3.

I don't think it will change and its sad, so please next time you planed to do an unrealistic/arcade game, avoid to call it a simulation it will lets the possibility for those who really want to create one to do so without think that one already exist.

I'm really disappointed and i hope mods like ACE will fix all this ridiculous leak of feature as possible for make the game playable/enjoyable.

Erm, weapons have attachments?

AI is vastly improved over A2.

Was an advanced wounding system, bipods, or anything else you list ever promised?

It sounds like you are the worlds best game designer, so why don't you rather than whinge about it, go design the worlds best military simulator?

[Sandy* 10]

i dont understand why every infantry get state of the art anti tank missile launchers then. since we have no lighter anti tank weapons this is the only thing we get that 1 shots every vehicle in the game

Remember most of the game's content (including weapons) is not in the alpha/beta. The hitech/scifi theme might mean we don't get light AT at all, though.

[zimms 22]

Ivan Buchta â€@IvanBuchta 1h

Finally got my hands on Steel Beasts Pro today, now off to studying the manuals. Feeling excited. #SBproPE

Oh the irony...

[purepassion 22]

Oh the irony...

I don't see any "irony" that would add anything constructive to the matter here.

Please stay on topic.

[Demongornot 10]

It is not cause i'm registered this year that i don't know the game since a lot of time, and i'm Inventor, its my job to having idea of things, understand how they work, what is wrong and what ca be done better/fixed, and if i'm registered here is only for the Arma 3 Alpha/Beta for report bugs and give idea in wishlist, i play a lot of game that i have never even see the forum.

I think you are inter-relating too many things, not the least of which is the tank interior issue is not a rendering / engine issue.

Well you heard wrong then, Arma 3 does not have a new 3D engine, its the same one thats been powering RV since Arma 1.

Like I said, this has been possible to the current level of detail since Arma 1, the super shader introduced in Arma 2 helps a lot with extra detail, but that has been around since Arma 2.

Lol, "fact" eh. I hate to tell you, but the same technology that drives the high detail interiors for the helicopters and wheeled vehicles is what works for tanks too. So it is completely possible, BI chooses not to do it because its not worth the effort.

I have NEVER said that Arma 2 or 1 can't handle 3D interior, i know perfectly that 3D interior for tanks is the same than the 3D interior for helicopter and vehicle, i just mean, i don't see the point to create 2 Island where one of them is 270 Km², make a whole new graphic engine, improve all 3D design, increase the polygon number and a bench of new upgrade and change, create highly detailed character, vehicle, even the seabed and create new 3D interior for vehicle like Ifrit, Hunter and other with working mirror with PIP same for a rear camera screen, doing all this stuff and finally just don't do the tank interior, UPGRADING a game is supposed to be change what is not done by the past without leave or forget feature/improvements but certainly not to repeat error from the past.

So yes i know what i talking about and i perfectly know that its NOT a problem of graphic engine and technology, but like i said why make a beautiful game with a lot of details if we forget an important place, and it not cause YOU don't want to see 3D interior for tank that mean that everyone don't want it, this topic is the proof of this.

Drama queen much?

What the point of this except freely jibe people ? you whole reply is full if this...

lol, there is so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin...

1. The Comanche would still be using optical sensors for the gunner, in addition to the radar (which was a modified Longbow system, as found on Apache)

2. The Comanche is not the only helicopter with the pilot in the front seat. Eurocopter Tiger is at least one other aircraft I can think of off the top of my head that has the pilot in the front seat...

I know a lot about airplane, i don't know a lot about helicopter but i still know several things, and i don't like the Tiger much so i have never look for things like who is at pilot or gunner seat and i have probably read it anyway but obviously forget, but it still be the fact that the Comanche have this feature and people who know it also know that it is something not common even if its not the only one.

And where i have said that i will not using IR/Optical and radar ? i have just said that with the new technology the gunner don't need to be in front seat cause sensor and interface/avionic was way enough for lets him always look at the screen and useless to find target with his eyes, and the radar of the Comanche is NOT modeled in the Arma version anyway, the radar in this helicopter is like the AH64D Longbow over the main rotor.

Erm, weapons have attachments?

What about LEFT and RIGHT ? what about the MOST IMPORTANT attachment after the top one, the lower attachment, side attachment is pretty useless compare lower one, grenade launcher, shotgun, RIS grip, RIS handle, bipod are ALL important and ALL can't be unmounted or mount in a weapon.

Even arcade and unrealistic game like Battlefield 3 handle this, and when i see that Arma 3 have a leak of feature like this and other game like Ghost Recon Future soldier can even permit to change barrel, internal mechanism, weapon butt and other part, i can only think that its another big and stupid leak of feature and its not this way that Arma will become realistic.

What about thing like TACTICAL attachment, the "laser pointer" you actually see in Arma its clearly a replica of real life laser pointer able to use IR laser, VISIBLE laser, 2 different flahslight + an IR flashlight and the one in Arma is not even able to lets us have IR and visible laser or IR and flashlight at time...

So yes weapon have attachment, but it still have a leak of attachment, mainly for a game supposed to be at year 203x, we actually have more and more attachment on weapon, French FELIN scope with Optic, IR, distance and other mode like the possibility to shoot from cover with a PIP camera aiming system and the similar system that the US Army (and a lot of other army) planed will be available for almost every soldier until 2020 for almost every army that improve their material, and we still have standard scope in Arma, no default scope with IR functions, some of them are not even able to be using with NVG and no weapon have a distance finding system, so yes again its a leak of feature, mainly when we know that for the final version we will having drones.

Even the way attachment work is a problem and make most of the weapon/attachment incompatible with mods, i talk about it here : http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9177

AI is vastly improved over A2.

Yeah that why everyone complain about AI that spot beyond object even beyond hill and shoot you 1Km away in full auto and still doing headshot.

Yesterday i have see 2 stupid bug with AI, the first one is a civilian, i was shooting a car for test a bug and what happen, the guy simply enter inside the car, sorry but its stupid, but a really big one, i was testing the AI AT reaction and wait for one to take his rocket/missile launcher, i use smoke, it work the AI was unable to shoot me, i pull back with the smoke between him and me and what happen ? he was be able to see me beyond the smoke, so he can't see in the smoke between the tank and him but he still be able to see between double of this smoke...

AI is really bad, sometime they don't even obey to what we told them, i'm sure in Arma 3 like Arma 2 AAA vehicle will still attack at land unit first and forget air unit until no more land unit left, its stupid, the Spotter DON'T do his work to told to the sniper the distance of the target and even if i know that Arma can't handle a system that make the AI describe the terrain for say : "Single soldier 3m right of the big rock" or other way to describe target position like this, a simple marker like the one for the waypoint and the AI Spotter who told us the distance its NOT a thing that was planned and its a really needed feature cause NEVER a sniper, mainly with a Spotter next to him will leave his sniper to use the rangefinder for know himself the distance of the target, no way to lower the binocular (another stupid restriction) and back to the sniper who will stupidly need to be take out of our back rather than lets it on the ground and simply lets the rangefinder next to it for avoid a ridiculous long delay for do this simple thing.

No way to control aircraft AI, no order for take off, land, increase altitude, orbiting over an area and other thing that car permit to jump with parachute or attack target without need to always told the AI where he have to go and see him flying too slow or too fast depending of the situation at a ridiculously low altitude that make us a really easy target.

Was an advanced wounding system, bipods, or anything else you list ever promised?

Sorry but the wounding system need to be improved, for the moment rollover with a tank with the wheel that ran over the head don't kill, like headshot, spin or hearth shot, its stupid and unrealistic, the fact that bot and player can still fight like if they are not injured, just the camera shake a little for player is stupid, bullet hit don't do anything and we magically need to know where we are hit, no visual indicator, not even in the inventory, and some people can say its not realistic, but i'm sorry behind hurt and don't know where we bleeding or where it hurt its not realistic at all.

A game like Arma without bipod and resting don't make any sense, mainly with sniper and machine gun we have recoil (who is not correctly done at all) and aiming sway, hold the breath is ridiculously short and a lot of other things including the fact that arcade game like BF3 (again) or other like Red Orchestra handle bipod and weapon resting and a mods proof the ability to resting a weapon everywhere on the map but it still be unfinished cause it don't stop the weapon sway, the MAIN thing that a bipod is supposed to cancel.

And all this feature like every other i have listed is IMPORTANT things that can't be just forget and claim that Arma is realistic and have any fidelity to the real world.

It sounds like you are the worlds best game designer, so why don't you rather than whinge about it, go design the worlds best military simulator?

I'm not the world best game designer, i'm an inventor and i know a lot about gameplay balance and feature that must be present or not on games.

And i have a project like this with an expected time of 6 year of dev, not a military sim, but a sim totally able to handle military things, and probably better than Arma about prevision of final product, but anyway its not the point and except jibe you don't seem to do anything and before you going to be mad and start with personal attack i want to clarify :

Their is NOTHING ELSE to talk about on my post, you can still make criticism about what i said but i still give valid argument and i don't want to loose my time to answer to 100 reply about it, useless to quote me again.

[Sandy* 10]

I have NEVER said that Arma 2 or 1 can't handle 3D interior, i know perfectly that 3D interior for tanks is the same than the 3D interior for helicopter and vehicle, i just mean, i don't see the point to create 2 Island where one of them is 270 Km², make a whole new graphic engine, improve all 3D design, increase the polygon number and a bench of new upgrade and change, create highly detailed character, vehicle, even the seabed and create new 3D interior for vehicle like Ifrit, Hunter and other with working mirror with PIP same for a rear camera screen, doing all this stuff and finally just don't do the tank interior, UPGRADING a game is supposed to be change what is not done by the past without leave or forget feature/improvements but certainly not to repeat error from the past.

So yes i know what i talking about and i perfectly know that its NOT a problem of graphic engine and technology, but like i said why make a beautiful game with a lot of details if we forget an important place, and it not cause YOU don't want to see 3D interior for tank that mean that everyone don't want it, this topic is the proof of this.

Like I tried explaining earlier, with cars and aircraft it's a lot more important to have the 3D interiors because that's pretty much the only way to represent the view from the driver's/pilot's perspective. But with tanks your eyes are fixed on that relatively small viewport hence a fixed camera view is a cheap and exceptable compromise (and a very good solution performance wise). And nobody's saying they don't want 3D interiors to tanks, we're just being realistic with game development.

Sorry but the wounding system need to be improved, for the moment rollover with a tank with the wheel that ran over the head don't kill, like headshot, spin or hearth shot, its stupid and unrealistic, the fact that bot and player can still fight like if they are not injured, just the camera shake a little for player is stupid, bullet hit don't do anything and we magically need to know where we are hit, no visual indicator, not even in the inventory, and some people can say its not realistic, but i'm sorry behind hurt and don't know where we bleeding or where it hurt its not realistic at all.

A game like Arma without bipod and resting don't make any sense, mainly with sniper and machine gun we have recoil (who is not correctly done at all) and aiming sway, hold the breath is ridiculously short and a lot of other things including the fact that arcade game like BF3 (again) or other like Red Orchestra handle bipod and weapon resting and a mods proof the ability to resting a weapon everywhere on the map but it still be unfinished cause it don't stop the weapon sway, the MAIN thing that a bipod is supposed to cancel.

And all this feature like every other i have listed is IMPORTANT things that can't be just forget and claim that Arma is realistic and have any fidelity to the real world.

If you're expecting Arma to simulate every aspect of the real living worldâ„¢ I don't really know what to say.

I'm not the world best game designer, i'm an inventor and i know a lot about gameplay balance and feature that must be present or not on games.

And i have a project like this with an expected time of 6 year of dev, not a military sim, but a sim totally able to handle military things, and probably better than Arma about prevision of final product

Please tell us more.

[Demongornot 10]

Like I tried explaining earlier, with cars and aircraft it's a lot more important to have the 3D interiors because that's pretty much the only way to represent the view from the driver's/pilot's perspective. But with tanks your eyes are fixed on that relatively small viewport hence a fixed camera view is a cheap and exceptable compromise (and a very good solution performance wise). And nobody's saying they don't want 3D interiors to tanks, we're just being realistic with game development.

Yeah but we don't talk about make 200 vehicle 3D interior, and with this mind, what the point of the detail on the seabed the wrecks, the 3D animal or even the new 3D scope or even the PhysX body ragdoll ?

They are all not necessary but still implemented even for the Alpha, anyways i have understand, nothing is planed for this, i hope a nice modder with nice 3D skill will fix this mistake.

If you're expecting Arma to simulate every aspect of the real living worldâ„¢ I don't really know what to say.

NO, only the thing related to combat, without correct wounding system (i don't talk about surgery simulation or something like this) , we can't obtain a realistic result by deleting realistic things, and i don't even talk about a lot of things that i know its not possible, but a lot of totally possible things, even that we see in unrealistic game that dare to make realistic feature some times and Arma 3 no, its the cancer of simulation, its not a real life simulation, its a procedure simulation, we don't embody a soldier we embody a robot with ridiculous limitation, i ask for the minimum like correct reaction to injury and not be killed by a guy that we have just headshot him and still not dead or at least pass out/incapacitate.

Please tell us more.

Sorry but no, can't say anything without take risk to see my idea get steal and anyway except get mock by septic people it wont change anything.

[Sandy* 10]

Yeah but we don't talk about make 200 vehicle 3D interior, and with this mind, what the point of the detail on the seabed the wrecks, the 3D animal or even the new 3D scope or even the PhysX body ragdoll ?

They are all not necessary but still implemented even for the Alpha, anyways i have understand, nothing is planed for this, i hope a nice modder with nice 3D skill will fix this mistake.

Making a 3D interior for a single vehicle is a considerable amount of work, yet alone making 10. Considering the points raised in this thread, tanks are naturally first in line to get such features cut. You're also reaching quite far with your statement now. "Why make a game at all if we can't have 3D interiors in tanks" :j:.

NO, only the thing related to combat, without correct wounding system (i don't talk about surgery simulation or something like this) , we can't obtain a realistic result by deleting realistic things, and i don't even talk about a lot of things that i know its not possible, but a lot of totally possible things, even that we see in unrealistic game that dare to make realistic feature some times and Arma 3 no, its the cancer of simulation, its not a real life simulation, its a procedure simulation, we don't embody a soldier we embody a robot with ridiculous limitation, i ask for the minimum like correct reaction to injury and not be killed by a guy that we have just headshot him and still not dead or at least pass out/incapacitate.

This is why Arma can never please you, you want it to be everything from tank sim, flight sim to infantry sim, but it can never really become any of them as the scope is too big. This whole wounding thing is also a clever compromise: you can always set difficulty high and not play missions with healing/recovery scripts. You'll get killed from one shot most of the time but dying in-game really has the same effect as getting wounded in real life - you're out of the fight. You said it yourself, surgery simulation is not what we're talking about here, so what do you want? Getting casevac'd and spending months in a hospital surely ain't going to be Arma gameplay. Unless you mean that getting shot in your right hand means you'll just switch to shooting with your left? Or getting shot in your leg means you'll keep fighting by hopping with a single foot? That's Hollywood for you.

Sorry but no, can't say anything without take risk to see my idea get steal and anyway except get mock by septic people it wont change anything.

Then why bring it up. I too have my own ideas for the best video game ever, but how does that become a fact usable in argumentation?

[dm 9]

Since English is not your first language, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I have NEVER said that Arma 2 or 1 can't handle 3D interior

Sorry, but it seems like you did:

fact that we have no 3D interior mean that its definitely not possible for Arma to handle 3D cabin/cockpit

and it not cause YOU don't want to see 3D interior for tank that mean that everyone don't want it, this topic is the proof of this.

Do not get me wrong: I would LOVE to see tank interiors.

I am simply providing a realistic set of reasoning as to why we are highly unlikely to see them in A3.

They don't have the time or the manpower to "waste" on assets which will only be seen for 0.0000001% of overall playtime.

What the point of this except freely jibe people ? you whole reply is full if this...

What, equally, is the point of the "woe is me, this is the worst thing to ever happen" style of post?

And where i have said that i will not using IR/Optical and radar ? i have just said that with the new technology the gunner don't need to be in front seat cause sensor and interface/avionic was way enough for lets him always look at the screen and useless to find target with his eyes

Maybe I just understood your post wrong:

the gunner don't need like other old combat helicopter to see target with his eyes cause sensor do better

The optical system on the Comanche is (was) an evolution of that on Apache. It works (would have worked) the exact same way as on Apache.

If they wanted to, they could move the gunner in Apache to the rear seat.

As far as I know, a Comanche with an actual sensor package never actually flew, so we'll never know.

the radar of the Comanche is NOT modeled in the Arma version anyway, the radar in this helicopter is like the AH64D Longbow over the main rotor.

Yes, this is a disappointment.

when i see that Arma 3 have a leak of feature like this

How can it be "leaked" if it was never promised in the first place?

And i have a project like this with an expected time of 6 year of dev... ...and probably better than Arma about prevision of final product

Well thats nice, A3 has been in development for a little under a year (if you consider how much technology was scrapped after the Ivan/Martin "incident" and the Joris/Jay takeover.

How big is your team? How big is your budget?

I'm sure you will have to sacrifice or "leak" features once you draw near to release also.

I look forward to seeing your product, and seeing if it really is as good as you claim it will be...

[Demongornot 10]

I'm sorry but i don't want to enter inside a long debate, i have understand anyway, it cost too much time to be done by BIS team, i hope nice modders guy with good 3D skill can do it.

But i will answer for politeness, not for a long debate.

@SandyBandy

I don't want Arma to be a 100% full simulation of everything, just avoiding some "too much arcade" part.

For wounding system the problem is more for me that sometime enemy who get hit and who must be unable to fight still 100% operate and able to kill us, when you have a lot of enemy in front of you and half of them who must be unable to fight but not dead and they still running at you for have you at firing range/sight it become a real problem, with any option level we have, and we don't have any indicator, some people can say that its not realistic but in real life when a part of your body hurt you, you feel it.

I want something close to what ACE offer for Arma 2 and realistic damage for the MAIN part oft he body, hand/arm = extremely difficult to aim/drive, legs = less stability, can't run (can't walk) like vanilla Arma 2 do with broken legs, vital organ hit (brain, spin, heart) = death or pass out, and important organ cause important bleeding that can be stabilized by a medic only and can permit a respawn system based in player who come back and simulate reinforcement (rather than a magically medication) for those who disabled respawn it lets a chance to player and can permit nice extraction mission.

Of course i know that we can't get perfect 100% accurate simulation in everything.

And its not me who start to talk about this, and i have made a mistake to talk about it.

@DM

This is cause of my bad English and i have communication problems even in my first language, i have expecting to say that its not too late to having any possibility of future upgrade with 3D interior AND clickable interface like TOH can do, a little like Steal Beast do, not with the same level of functionality of course, but more immerse, can permit more functions without need to use the equivalent of 2 keyboard and adding more realistic aiming system for talk based on optical/thermal sensor that can make it on a realistic way follow the target and not a magical arcade automatic lock system based no nothing except determining if the target is in sight of the player that make the game unable to "lock" target perfectly in sight and impossible to lock or possible to lock target that we don't see, its a big issue, and a tank without automatic elevation today its a dinosaur, it can't exist in 2030 as a main battle tank or primary light/medium armored vehicle, and functions like this can be great to be switch off and on with mouse and can permit sub functions but also for modders to expend the functionality and make more mode, and maybe if clickable cabin was implemented nice mods like ACE 3 can use it and add functions and add realism in the same time.

That what i have expecting to say, and i talk about no much more function than actual, just more realistic way to operate the tank, a lot of people for example want manual gear with possibility to switch to auto it in options.

And in fact i agree that it can be a lot of other things that can be done rather than this, but when i see the level of complexity of Arma 3 i have imagine and hope that it will be done, i actually don't know the number of people who working at 3D stuff, and sometime when a game is almost at the end of the development 3D designer don't have that much work to do cause the game is already build and the most work is spend by codder who fix bugs, that why i have expecting 3D interior for tank for Beta and that why i have think that both wheeled light tank that we will get will have 3D interior.

I just hope that a modder will do a really great 3D interior and lets BIS team incorporate it as default in Arma 3.

I really love thanks and i think everyone find impressive the kick off the canon inside the turret, its impressive and also talk its an atmosphere to be inside a heavily armored thing that make us unable to see outside except with optic system and i have always wanted it for Arma 2, i just say how much i'm disappointed about it, and it can be important for game maker to know it, know impression, judge about when some free time is here what can be done or not.

The Comanche is officially never out i agree but the Stealth Black Hawk like we have a reproduction in Arma is not even supposed to existed officially and we have found several proof of this existence, including a part of the tail when it crashed, and its clearly a Black Hawk, same design/mechanism and compete stealth technology for audio, thermal and radar.

It actually make more sense for helicopter to have pilot in the front seat for better visibility, and the fact that gunner is in front in a lot of helicopter is mainly for lets them see target with their eyes, and maybe the upgrade helicopter like the AH-64D can handle gunner at rear seat without limit him with sensor that are sometime really boring/not enough (for a fast decision) fast and intuitive and fast to operate, but first version of helicopter like this, including the helicopter just before it are not able to do it, like the AH-1A, gunner in rear seat will be a poor decision, the AH-64 is clearly designed for a lot of thing who come from the AH-1, change gunner position mean change avionic position, change a lot of things, visibility, position in the cabin and more and more and its way more simple to use a lot of things who come from what we something that already work, but the AH-1 is created from the UH-1 Huey and its the first gunship and also the Comanche like a lot of advanced aircraft have more avionic and need different configuration, and its not a big problem to totally rework it cause its deeply different.

And what i complain about is not more the position that was not logical for a future rebuild of an helicopter, but also thing like gunner control ALL weapon including rocket and pilot have to take control for use Rocket, and in fact PILOT is supposed to control rocket and gunner to control guided rocket/missile and canon cause rocket must be aim by controlling the helicopter and not the canon/sensor position.

And the leak of thing like i have said before of the magical lock system, i don't want a 100% accurate IR/Optical and radar simulation, but something more realistic than an arcade system that make the helicopter able to do unrealistic shoot and totally unbalance a fight.

And sorry but i don't want to talk about what i expecting to do, and in fact its extremely complicated anyway, i have just answer you cause i don't like to lets people without answer.

[Wolfstriked 11]

I find the view with hatch closed when driving to be very immersive.Its also appears to not be a 2D window but more a view from inside the tank as you can see the hull of the tank thru the window.Just needs some work to make tank fighting truly something that players will wanna do.Right now nobody even tries because its incomplete.

When in drivers position have the ability to turn your head left and right with mouse and to model all the view ports for each position and for each tank separately.Its nowhere near the amount of work to model fully 3D interiors!

Bearing and heading indicators and also elevation of turrets etc.

A PIP rear view camera that pops up to the lower right of screen when reverse is selected.

Gunner positions that you also have viewports where you can turn with mouse to view out of or press optics to go to the weapon cameras.

GPS when turned in.

Fleshed out commander position(none modeled in either APC)where you use WASD to guide the driver where to go.Press fire button on mouse to signal to gunner what bearing to fire upon.Use a GPS map for better control of tank on map.

Add some more keys to vehicles so that you can put functions at the players fingertips and not cause key dancing or conflicts that arise with ill chosen key setups.

[zimms 22]

I think tank interiors are a perfect example for a DLC.

Those who get it won't have too much of an unfair advantage and still everyone can play with everyone (don't even need a 'Light' version, since the current implementation would be just that).

And I'm sure many of those who are so desperately begging for interiors right now would pay for them.

On BIS' side it's a good solution too. They get paid for their extra effort and time it takes and it can easily be done after the game's release.

[omerc 10]

...cause i don't like to lets people without answer.

Nope.