We need more torque

[aoshi 1]

The way the vehicles climb the hillsides and slopes, often stopping or going extremely slowly in ArmA2 we had problems even going down (vehicles not caught on as much momentum ArmA3) but the climb still terrible, especially with heavier vehicles such as wheeled APC or tracked, just the ones that are powerful and theoretically made to beat hard terrain, and I believe that in the future (and currently ) they'd get more speed / would climb more easily

And even if in reality they may be slower the "apc" (4x4 cars, I'm sure are faster in reality) for the sake of gameplay 3km hours in uphill nobody deserves.

[Beagle 684]

The main problem offroad is traction not torque. Power is nothing without control and traction.There must be a natural limit for climbing and maybe you just hit it.

[T6_Gtr 10]

I do agree with Beagle when it comes to vehicles with wheels. They need better "off road" tires however not the tracked. Tracked vehicles do need more torque.

[stealth2668 12]

Whatever it may be, vehicles are terrible at going up even the smallest hills.

[nodunit 397]

Depends on the vehicle, the panther can drive over one like a pro whereas the marid wants to stall.

[John Kozak 14]

The main problem offroad is traction not torque. Power is nothing without control and traction.There must be a natural limit for climbing and maybe you just hit it.

I agree with it, but then it must be correspondingly simulated. Let the wheels have some slip - and there'll be totally another feeling to it... Right now it seems like the vehicles are powered by budget-credit-car engines.

[becario 1]

We are talking about military vehicles. They are prepared for offroad climbing. MRAPs, quads, and even trucks should easily cimb most of Stratis slopes. Have you seen a offroad firetruck? Geez! Those are amazing offroad. Plus there are limited slip diferencials, torque distributors, and many other magic things that make cars go uphill even in very slippery surfaces.

Most of the military vehicles in the game (not the amphibious ones, or the civilian offroads) should be able to go uphill in more situations, though at very low speeds (some 5-10 km/h).

Well, and we can always take Jezza's advice...

Edited August 16, 2013 by becario

[Bee8190 10]

To me, the issue is clearly the automatic transmission and how gears work, plus absence of any kind of clutch / differential. You can notice that once the engine reach about 2000 revs, the vehicle is going to start moving, no matter how steep an incline is, therefore the torque / power is there, however once it does start to move, the silly transmission quickly sticks in higher gear and stall the vehicle again, basically forcing you to repeat the cycle till cleared off hill.

Ideally, the engine should just spin the tires or tracks, instead of just stall the engine but the issue currently seem to be absence of mentioned clutch / differential mechanism.

See how handbrake works ( the X key ) ( and hunter vehicle is best for this test ) - reverse the hunter vehicle till it stop gaining speed and press the handbrake ( X ) and notice how the front wheels are still spinning when the vehicle is already standstill.

(same applies for front movement but it's less noticeable)

( front axle - wheels should deliver power independently of what the rear wheels are doing and same applies to if front wheels were blocked / locked up )

Edited August 16, 2013 by Bee8190

[RushHour 11]

It´s plain and simple physics of the cars. It´s just really bad when you chip away at the surface. But overall it "does the job".

[Bee8190 10]

It´s plain and simple physics of the cars. It´s just really bad when you chip away at the surface. But overall it "does the job".

Sorry but here's where I disagree. I am not playing this game because most elements just do their job as my expectations are little higher, given there hasn't been exactly steep improvements since arma1.

As for the post #8, I forgotten to mention the handbrake should be simultaneously pressed with throttle key for said test, just in case it didn't come up as obvious enough

[RushHour 11]

Sorry but here's where I disagree.

there´s a reason why car game developers do not use PhysX when simulating probably the most complex thing you can in games.

Things that PhysX are good for are,

destructible environments, dynamic tearable cloth, particle physics, ragdoll effects etc etc.

Where it really fails is more advanced things like aircrafts and cars where cars are many orders of magnitude harder to simulate properly.

I´m sure some people are happy with the current physics but if you are a simracer or flight simmer there´s just lightyears away from what i could be.

As for the cars it´s not even remotely correct other then going forward, stopping and turning. that´s the height of the potential of PhysX when it comes to simulating various crafts.

Out of all the games that utilize PhysX, only three games use it for vehicle dynamics. Arma 3, 7554 and Planetside 2. (because in reality it´s actually terrible)

Edited August 18, 2013 by RushHour

[xendance 3]

there´s a reason why car game developers do not use PhysX when simulating probably the most complex thing you can in games.

Things that PhysX are good for are,

destructible environments, dynamic tearable cloth, particle physics, ragdoll effects etc etc.

Where it really fails is more advanced things like aircrafts and cars where cars are many orders of magnitude harder to simulate properly.

I´m sure some people are happy with the current physics but if you are a simracer or flight simmer there´s just lightyears away from what i could be.

As for the cars it´s not even remotely correct other then going forward, stopping and turning. that´s the height of the potential of PhysX when it comes to simulating various crafts.

Out of all the games that utilize PhysX, only three games use it for vehicle dynamics. Arma 3, 7554 and Planetside 2. (because in reality it´s actually terrible)

More games that use PhysX for vehicles:

Unreal Tournament 3

Red Orchestra 2

Borderlands 1 & 2

Gears of War games

Mass Effect 1, 2, 3

Tribes: Ascend

Those are just the games I know for certain. So please, stop pulling facts out from your arse ;)

Even though it isn't as good as some car physics engines, it's more than adequate for the use case of arma.

[RushHour 11]

As i said, no car games. Just like you see no flight simulators utilizing any PhysX in their games. It´s because it´s plain and simple crap for that kind of job.

Also regarding talking out of my own ass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_hardware-accelerated_PhysX_support

Don´t tell people they are talking out of their own ass for no reason.

I disagree on the fact that it´s more then adequate. It´s arcade stuff you see in games you yourself listed. It´s not anywhere near the standards Arma 3 has put in every other department.

As i said, it´s great for flags, particle stuff, explosions or other small things but actual flight/drive models, no not even in the same solar system.

Edit: the reason this thread even exists is because the physics is crap.

Edited August 18, 2013 by RushHour

[Bee8190 10]

I'm pretty sure Project cars use physx 3.0 for their driving model. Not sure about Iracing and some others but these games are to be released yet as they still in development. Either way, I wouldn't say physx is not used in race sim games.

I think the reason this thread exist is not to pursue the devs to give us 100% authentic model of all included vehicles but rather significantly improve upon it as vehicles overall physx were just far too archaic, even for arma 2 and finally remove the atrocious limitations they always had.

[xendance 3]

As i said, no car games. Just like you see no flight simulators utilizing any PhysX in their games. It´s because it´s plain and simple crap for that kind of job.

Also regarding talking out of my own ass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_hardware-accelerated_PhysX_support

Don´t tell people they are talking out of their own ass for no reason.

I disagree on the fact that it´s more then adequate. It´s arcade stuff you see in games you yourself listed. It´s not anywhere near the standards Arma 3 has put in every other department.

As i said, it´s great for flags, particle stuff, explosions or other small things but actual flight/drive models, no not even in the same solar system.

Edit: the reason this thread even exists is because the physics is crap.

Your list only lists hardware accelerated physx games, not all that use the physics engine.

Rigid body dynamics can be easily calculated by the CPU. No need for HW acceleration, and there wouldn't be any sense in doing them HW accelerated only.

In planetside 2 only the extra particles are hardware accelerated. There's an on/off switch for those. Vehicle physics remain unaffected. This is the case for all games.

I agree that, for example, the ArmA 3 implementation of tracked vehicles is rather iffy.

[RushHour 11]

I'm pretty sure Project cars use physx 3.0 for their driving model. Not sure about Iracing and some others but these games are to be released yet as they still in development. Either way, I wouldn't say physx is not used in race sim games.

That´s because it´s not. PhysX does not cut in it simulators. For arcade yes that will do the job or other smaller things but in Arma´s case, a war simulator this clearly needs work.

Take the big truck out for a spin then tell me what paralells you can find in the real world apart from going front back and side to side.

Neither iRacing or PCARS use PhysX in any way, they write their own engines from the ground up.

There´s some very very odd things going on with the vehicle physics. Hopefully it gets better for full release but it´s still PhysX however you look at it. You can put make-up on a pig but it´s still a pig.

Basically to me this would be the same as someone being content with having gun sounds taken straight from Youtube. Some have their bars set at different heights when it comes to various features, this particular one i set very very high because i know what the potential is.

Anyway enough from me, i can only hope it gets much better.

[Bashka_IF 1]

heavy trucks magic.

It can even move uphill 7km/h !

[cpl_hicks 2]

The comments about PHYSX in relation to vehicles requires more research and verification. I'm sure there must be a way to fix this or work around it but yea vehicles need a major update since OFP as far as handling goes, especially torque and traction!

[thenach 10]

As Bee said...

The problem is the automatic gearbox and it does not have a kickback.

It should be and option for Manual Gears as real cars have :)

[aoshi 1]

Guys in arma 2 before physix we have the same thing (and yes the wheels speening is kinda ungly)

---------- Post added at 01:22 ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 ----------

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/903256907702030424/1AFC0838A29A67F90232DF73FC2B41DB0F776883/1024x640.resizedimage

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/903256907702016429/054E41EDB662EC2A8996087B5AD7F27DA9052008/1024x640.resizedimage

heavy trucks magic.

It can even move uphill 7km/h !

For me the main problens is with tracked venchiles that slip too much, and i don't believe that truck will go uphill

[Bee8190 10]

I think we nailed the handling response but cars still feel like they're floating. The lack off more gravity / weight is noticeable when going over bumps or small destroyed walls as the vehicles somewhat hover - float over such. I also noticed that the vehicles feel bit too soft going by their near top speed just cruising around altis, the impression is that it drives like a hovercraft, especially in 1st person. Don't be afraid to shake the passengers some more :)

The Marshall AMV-7 - I feel that the reverse gear is far too short ( kind of - slow and sluggish ) and overall the vehicle could use bit more life to it. By life I mean that the gears appear to be little short which in return makes the vehicle appear quite sluggish and lazy like. It is perhaps result of its engine sound feedback but I really feel that it's sound is extremely casual and lazy sounding, which makes it really boring experience to just drive around the new, wonderful altis.

I also think that in 3th person view the vehicle is quieter than it needs to be and would wish that the difference wasn't as big.

I think the hunter vehicle is great so far and my only gripe about it would be the very, very casual sounding engine. I feel it really lacks any drama whilst driving it. Other than that, hunter is good stuff :)

ATV - the atv is little odd but I'm sure its work in progress. IMO the top speed is little conservative and this little vehicle could use much more acceleration ability. I also believe that the ATV has it's weight far too high which is very noticeable while turning. These quad bikes should feel rather as go-carts than heavy vehicle

Edited August 31, 2013 by Bee8190

[Bee8190 10]

Me again ;)

I was wondering if the civilian SUV / truck could have increased it's max speed as I think it's max speed is little conservative. Even the basic V6 3.0L TDI Q7 can do 240km hr and it would be great if we could push it to at least 200km hr on those lengthy awesome altis roads :) ( racing would be just sick fun! )

Going through the last page I hope I am not too critical and / or demanding but seeing as driving will be more important than ever due to size of altis, I'd like to do my best to help in making that much better experience in arma 3 :)