When can we begin to critique vehicles??

[Anachoretes 10]

Just heed to detach him and animate for most vehicles. Would be nice feature.

[Wolfstriked 11]

From the very start I have felt that something is wrong with the PIP rear cameras in vehicles.I use a rear view camera every day and they feel very easy to use yet in A3 I cant understand them.I thought it was maybe that the wide FOV was throwing me off but I just gave it a good go to see if it could actually be useful and I find its backwards.Can someone please verify it and I'll post a ticket.

[tortuosit 486]

I think the "This is beta/alpha" mainly stems from

... often forum newbies searching for a quick applause.

[twistking 204]

Hello guys,

i have made a ticket about nicer and more informative GUI / HUD for the APCs among others.

Take a look:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10884

Feedback appreciated!

[Wolfstriked 11]

Twist king I voted up!What do u think about he small sized pip in the strider?It would fit perfectly underneath the driver view ports in the APC's.Throw in standard GPS in opposite corner and a digital heading and turret bearing indicator at top and and it would look good IMO.

And I posted a ticket about the flipped PIP but it got downvoted.FPDR

Maybe I am wording it wrong so I'll explain it better here.When you have a building on the right side of your truck it should show up in right side of PIP but instead its flipped and it shows on left side.I could be very wrong here though I am kinda certain and I did verify today with a rear view camera that objects on one side of vehicle show up in PIP on that side.

[twistking 204]

Twist king I voted up!What do u think about he small sized pip in the strider?It would fit perfectly underneath the driver view ports in the APC's.Throw in standard GPS in opposite corner and a digital heading and turret bearing indicator at top and and it would look good IMO.

Yes something like this should be fine. I think it would be good to have a UI-designer giving a nice look to it, otherwise it might just look like random elements thrown on a black background. Perhaps some overlaying pp-effect or just stylizing each element a bit so that it looks coherent as a composition. There are many casual / cod-style games out there, that have pretty decent interface designs. Battlefield 3 for example. Only talking about Ui design, not gameplay or realism;)

And I posted a ticket about the flipped PIP but it got downvoted.FPDR

Maybe I am wording it wrong so I'll explain it better here.When you have a building on the right side of your truck it should show up in right side of PIP but instead its flipped and it shows on left side.I could be very wrong here though I am kinda certain and I did verify today with a rear view camera that objects on one side of vehicle show up in PIP on that side.

Well, i guess both ways would make sense somehow. A backfacing camera would have the sides switched normally, but i guess most systems mirror the video-feed so that the experience is that of a mirror like... well, a car mirror. Can't even say, what i would prefer.

[Wolfstriked 11]

I prefer the rear view mirror way as that is how I learned to drive backwards with and is how the rear view cameras I drive with work.

[twistking 204]

i just tested it. yes, mirrored rear-view camera would feel better, than the current not mirrored cams.

[Wolfstriked 11]

Vote up.:)

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10897

[twistking 204]

already did that!

[Wolfstriked 11]

Here are two other things that I feel need a rethink.I will make a ticket for each if I can see that its worthwhile and wont be just shot down.

First is the fov when using the scopes inside vehicles is too narrow and causes a harsh situational awareness penalty for 1st person players.A very simple way to test what a wider FOV does for situational awareness is to go back to OA and get in an M1A2 Tusk.Now enter a small town and try to maneuver the tank thru the streets using the wider commanders FOV and then the narrower gunners FOV.You will find that you completely get lost when using gunners view and with commanders view you can steer the driver thru buildings etc.

Second issue I have is the turret location icon in A2.Its a complicated system that can be alot easier to understand if they were to make the tank rotate while keeping your view up top instead of how it is now where the tank is always pointed upwards and your view rotates.Its much easier if you look at icon and not have to calculate where the turret is pointed as its always upwards.Then the tank icon shows the tanks direction easily.

And one thing I feel it also needs is the scope vibrations when moving as they are sweeeeeeet in A2.EDIT<<<<only noticeable in gunners scope view.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Wolfstriked

[twistking 204]

do think of something like this?

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10935

concerning the turret bearing indicator, i think you are right. but at the moment there aren't such indicators at all in arma 3. so better wait. i hope that they will make a total revamp of heavy vehicle UI.

[Wolfstriked 11]

do think of something like this?

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10935

concerning the turret bearing indicator, i think you are right. but at the moment there aren't such indicators at all in arma 3. so better wait. i hope that they will make a total revamp of heavy vehicle UI.

Nah dude I am talking about correct FOV relative to the fov you play with in 3rd person.And sorry to say I was the one downvote on that ticket.Go inside the AMV and look at a stone and then press 3rd person and you will see that the FOV stays the same.Or look thru view window and then turn out and its all the same FOV.IMO the drivers view is perfect in the vehicles and gives them the claustrophobic yet realistic view.The gunner/commander scopes though have huge zoom in and thats unrealistic and detrimental to gameplay.

I think scopes should be a 1:1 fov with infantry view.It will be a smaller FOV due to the black box around edge.Also the way they model the gunner scope with such small FOV and a huge ass circle view port looks weird.It would look better if the view was the 1:1 FOV but with smaller circle.And finally:rolleyes: why is it round when the APC's have remote control and the screen is square like in the Striders.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Wolfstriked

[twistking 204]

when you say driver view is perfect, do you mean perfect from a realism point of view, or perfect from a gameplay point of view?

because gameplay would benefit from a little (!) wider view, i think (more awareness, better immersion, because you see a tiny bit more of the vehicle). and from a realism point of view it is very, very complicated: just cut a hole in a piece of paper and look throgh it. vary the distance between your eyes and paper and notice how your FOV seems to get wider, when you get nearer. also you could argue, that the driver doesn't look through a window, but through some form of mirror-sight (how are they called?). i don't know how it is handled in reality, but it would be absolutely no problem to change the magnification of these "sights" from a technical/optical point of view.

but frankly, i don't really care about the driver FOV. it wasn't mine ticket btw. I'm the one with this ticket. i'm all for proper GUI and immersion;)

---------- Post added at 00:39 ---------- Previous post was at 00:36 ----------

why is it round when the APC's have remote control and the screen is square like in the Striders.

I totally agree:rolleyes:

Edited July 7, 2013 by twistking

[Wolfstriked 11]

when you say driver view is perfect, do you mean perfect from a realism point of view, or perfect from a gameplay point of view?

because gameplay would benefit from a little (!) wider view, i think (more awareness, better immersion, because you see a tiny bit more of the vehicle). and from a realism point of view it is very, very complicated: just cut a hole in a piece of paper and look throgh it. vary the distance between your eyes and paper and notice how your FOV seems to get wider, when you get nearer. also you could argue, that the driver doesn't look through a window, but through some form of mirror-sight (how are they called?). i don't know how it is handled in reality, but it would be absolutely no problem to change the magnification of these "sights" from a technical/optical point of view.

but frankly, i don't really care about the driver FOV. it wasn't mine ticket btw. I'm the one with this ticket. i'm all for proper GUI and immersion;)

Realism within the Arma game that is.I feel that weird FOV changes when you jump in and out of vehicles is detrimental to immersion.And the FOV is wider already than what you see in real life as it has to cram more info into a small PC screen.I just turn out to get a bit more view space.Still in the AMV turned out is still a horrible position to drive from.

And on AMV I think it is just a regular small window slat.And is the the word you thinking for episcopes?

Edited July 7, 2013 by Wolfstriked

[twistking 204]

ok. now i know what you mean.

i thought about it as some kind of "periscope". kind of a mirror-thingy? ... would make sense for a tank, because you could not get shot through it.

Something different: What do you all think about the dev's decision to definitely not make proper interiors for mbt and apc?

I think it is a pity. I found this ticket. Perhaps there is still a little chance!

Especially since the light vehicles are coming along so splendidly. The ifrit now has openable doors that are animated with get-in get-out animations and i'm sure the other lights vehicles will follow. I can't understand why they show so little love for the heavier vehicles!

Edited July 7, 2013 by twistking

[Wolfstriked 11]

[/color]Something different: What do you all think about the dev's decision to definitely not make proper interiors for mbt and apc?

I think it is a pity. I found this ticket. Perhaps there is still a little chance!

Especially since the light vehicles are coming along so splendidly. The ifrit now has openable doors that are animated with get-in get-out animations and i'm sure the other lights vehicles will follow. I can't understand why they show so little love for the heavier vehicles!

Have u tried commanding the M1A2 Tusk around in commanders view?It has a 1:1 fov and you really feel in control of the tank.The widest fov in Arma3 is the gunners position in the strider and you can feel a large difference in ability to actually command the vehicle around.I wonder alot if the devs actually play the game or do they just say "make the scope views in vehicles smaller to simulate the lower fov"??It was perfect in commanders view in the M1A1 Tusk so why go with this new zoomed in penalty driving in a cardboard box feel?

[twistking 204]

Let us just hope, that all the heavy vehicle GUI related things are still WIP.

Edited July 7, 2013 by twistking

[Wolfstriked 11]

LOLI will pray :pray:

[CaptainObvious 95]

And on AMV I think it is just a regular small window slat.

AMV has a periscope for the driver.

[Wolfstriked 11]

AMV has a periscope for the driver.

I think ur right

[Bee8190 10]

I guess the devs focus at the moment is creating and tweaking other content coming to the beta like the newly added APC's but aside of that I feel there has not been done much with the vehicles (physx) in last few weeks / builds.

Rear axle has far too much space for movement and usually results in one the mid rear wheel levitating. I am unsure but I think the axle is one piece that acts as suspension thingy and automatically lifts one wheel or the other, depending on which wheel has a contact and carry most weight.

Still though, the rear axle has far too much movement and in game looks like it is hitting the body / mudguard section above wheels as per pic. I think its the vehicle (heaviness) that needs tweaking rather than (limit) the suspension / axle travel.

Kamaz truck - I mentioned earlier that it should feel some resistance, like its dragging something along with it while accelerating but now it feels quite artificial, like the brakes were engaged before 3th change of gear occurs. Further tweaking of heaviness is IMO needed as the truck also jumps over bumps similarly to the 4x4 civilian SUV. Steering ratio still bit too responsive or either wheel, full turn in, takes very little time and/or effort.

The inner wheel tends to sink into the ground while driving in circle/s which looks odd. If that was a weight distribution, it would have been the outer wheel / tyre bearing the weight but as kamaz still WIP, no biggie.

( Button assignment feels really out of place on Xbox 360 controller but feedback will be left in appropriate section )

HEMTT - Truck share the same sound sample with Kamaz truck, probably only a placeholder for kamaz and some tweaks to HEMTT? Shall see later.

The very front wheels are out of place on full turn in and turn angle is too steep as it would appear the chassi and first front wheel would be simply unable to accommodate such steep angle and should be leveled with same turn in ratio to the second axle as per pic.

And some useful videos I hope ;)

Skip to 0:30 - Rear axle movement (limit) on kamaz truck

and some 6x6 8x8 truck reference

Edited July 17, 2013 by Bee8190

[PantherAl 11]

Have u tried commanding the M1A2 Tusk around in commanders view?It has a 1:1 fov and you really feel in control of the tank.The widest fov in Arma3 is the gunners position in the strider and you can feel a large difference in ability to actually command the vehicle around.I wonder alot if the devs actually play the game or do they just say "make the scope views in vehicles smaller to simulate the lower fov"??It was perfect in commanders view in the M1A1 Tusk so why go with this new zoomed in penalty driving in a cardboard box feel?

That's actually somewhat realistic there that the TC has a better FOV than the Gunner. Having tried to move a TUSK through city streets at the 12"=1' scale, I can assure you, you can't see crap from the gunners position. Now, with the A2, you have the commanders sight (R2 unit we called it) that is almost enough to see with when moving, but in reality we never used it for giving direction. The TC's 'scopes cover almost the entire 360 degree spectrum, and when you need to see more, you can either unbutton all the way, and expose yourself, to give yourself the best possible view, or you can open the hatch partially. Basically, the hatch has two pivot points: the first swings it up and over as would a normal hatch, but the second allows the hatch to swing back down, providing both overhead cover, and about six inches of clearance to look around clearly (The inside of the hatch is domed so you still have room for your helmet to stick up enough to allow you to peek through the crack.

I was watching a video a few days ago, can't recall who did it, but the guy was moaning how crappy the FOV from 1st person it was in the drivers perspective. Personally, I would have loved to have that good of a view out of the front block from the drivers hole. :) Of course, you have the two other blocks pointing to the corners of the front slope, but lets be honest, the FOV for the driver is only marginally better than that of the gunner. The loader is actually well off relatively speaking. He only has one 'scope, but at least his spins 360 Degrees.

[Wolfstriked 11]

That's actually somewhat realistic there that the TC has a better FOV than the Gunner. Having tried to move a TUSK through city streets at the 12"=1' scale, I can assure you, you can't see crap from the gunners position. Now, with the A2, you have the commanders sight (R2 unit we called it) that is almost enough to see with when moving, but in reality we never used it for giving direction. The TC's 'scopes cover almost the entire 360 degree spectrum, and when you need to see more, you can either unbutton all the way, and expose yourself, to give yourself the best possible view, or you can open the hatch partially. Basically, the hatch has two pivot points: the first swings it up and over as would a normal hatch, but the second allows the hatch to swing back down, providing both overhead cover, and about six inches of clearance to look around clearly (The inside of the hatch is domed so you still have room for your helmet to stick up enough to allow you to peek through the crack.

I was watching a video a few days ago, can't recall who did it, but the guy was moaning how crappy the FOV from 1st person it was in the drivers perspective. Personally, I would have loved to have that good of a view out of the front block from the drivers hole. :) Of course, you have the two other blocks pointing to the corners of the front slope, but lets be honest, the FOV for the driver is only marginally better than that of the gunner. The loader is actually well off relatively speaking. He only has one 'scope, but at least his spins 360 Degrees.

I get all your points.Maybe a larger FOV could be incorporated though since we are not able to look out the vision blocks.For example the Marid has 360deg vision block view but we are stuck in a small FOV only.An increase in FOV could add a little back to what is missing IMO.

[chortles 263]

Crossposting from the Marshall vs. Patria thread, but from this morning's dev branch changelog:

ADDED: Hiding of NVGs in vehicles can be configured per position.
ADDED: Commander postition for Marshall and Kamysh.
FIX: APC turrets now have authentic vision modes.
FIX: Tweaked suspension of APCs.
FIX: Pimped crew and cargo animations of APCs.