Tanks tanks tanks...PROBLEMS!

[343rdBadger 0]

Noticed some issues with the new armor:

Can't turn out in commander or driver on the opfor anti-air vehicle.

Tanks in some cases will not move in reverse even though there are no obsticles behind them.

Tanks will not drive over a short stone wall...you have to backup(if it will even backup) and then get up speed to breach...a one foot wall?????

When in the gunners station in the artillery.If the gun is super elevated and you switch to external view...your looking off into space.

When rangeing targets the range scale doesn't match the laser range and the rounds don't land anywhere near their intended range even when you do get a close distance match.Bis why can't you add a freakin lase target feature??!!!

Wierd targeting happening in the t-100 when driving...targets the ground??? Can't make heads or tails outta this one???Not sure just what is happening here.RMB is switching from interior to exterior and locking targets at same time...why??? Makes no sense.

lock and zoom still the same command???? Thought this was supposed to change???

Please BIS look into these issues and give us some decent immersion in armor combat, seems to me these are legacy issues from Arma2 and aren't flattering at all

Edited September 4, 2013 by 343rdBadger

[-=seany=- 5]

May as well all post tank problems to this thread, I posted most of this in the Dev discussion thread but it will be buried in no time.

Why does the East MBT have no MG?

Why do two separate factions share so many parts? Artillery gun, APC gun, AA gun? It's bad enough we have to put up with the lack of interiors, at least put some effort into how the outside looks... At the moment it looks bad and lazy. I really am unimpressed by it.

Why do some vehicles crew's positions get thermal optics but no NV optics or vice versa?

The Artillery pieces look particularity bad to me. The gap between the huge turret and tank chassis looks silly, the turret ring looks too small. Make it join like the merkeva's Chassis and turret. Also, the NATO Artillery tank's chassis and Turret look like they where textured/modeled by different people, both using different levels of detail. It's obvious that the turret was an after thought and made late in the (rushed) development process. It looks odd.

The handling of the tanks is pretty uninspiring (I feel the same way about most of the A3 vehicles tbh, the offroad is pretty ok). The way they stop/accelerate turn etc just feels unnatural. There is also another problem with vehicles: why can't you move forward and Turn at the same time? When you give a steering input it cuts forward power. The sounds effects for the tanks are bland also. There is no feeling of power or the sense of the engine laboring to move the weight, just two bland engine tones (read drones), one for moving and one for idling.

Another problem is with the model LODs, they are pretty rough. The Turret ring disappears on the Artillery tank for example...leaving it levitating above the tank...

Finally of course we have the same crappy Fire Control System/Zeroing. No real changes to how any of the tank gunnery is operated. Not even any new cool things they could add in given it's supposed to be the "future".

[antoineflemming 14]

May as well all post tank problems to this thread, I posted most of this in the Dev discussion thread but it will be buried in no time.

Why does the East MBT have no MG?

Why do two separate factions share so many parts? Artillery gun, APC gun, AA gun? It's bad enough we have to put up with the lack of interiors, at least put some effort into how the outside looks... At the moment it looks bad and lazy. I really am unimpressed by it.

Why do some vehicles crew's positions get thermal optics but no NV optics or vice versa?

The Artillery pieces look particularity bad to me. The gap between the huge turret and tank chassis looks silly, the turret ring looks too small. Make it join like the merkeva's Chassis and turret. Also, the NATO Artillery tank's chassis and Turret look like they where textured/modeled by different people, both using different levels of detail. It's obvious that the turret was an after thought and made late in the (rushed) development process. It looks odd.

The handling of the tanks is pretty uninspiring (I feel the same way about most of the A3 vehicles tbh, the offroad is pretty ok). The way they stop/accelerate turn etc just feels unnatural. There is also another problem with vehicles: why can't you move forward and Turn at the same time? When you give a steering input it cuts forward power. The sounds effects for the tanks are bland also. There is no feeling of power or the sense of the engine laboring to move the weight, just two bland engine tones (read drones), one for moving and one for idling.

Another problem is with the model LODs, they are pretty rough. The Turret ring disappears on the Artillery tank for example...leaving it levitating above the tank...

Finally of course we have the same crappy Fire Control System/Zeroing. No real changes to how any of the tank gunnery is operated. Not even any new cool things they could add in given it's supposed to be the "future".

There was a railgun which would have at least been cool even if a bit futuristic, but that got axed because of all the people who wanted the game to remain in early 2000s.

[Bee8190 10]

I shall use this thread so..

Devs are most likely aware of some shortcomings but just in case - M4 Scrocher, when turned out

http://imageshack.us/a/img199/1480/k3rp.jpg (1098 kB)

I think it's fairly obvious that physx is far from finished on most tracked vehicles but so far I like the slammer tank and the M4 Scortcher mobile howitzer. Sounds as in immersion wise are also far better than on other tracked vehicles but have to leave feedback coming some other time :)

[343rdBadger 0]

Tanks can barely navigate the new terrain on Altis , driver gets hung up on every second f-ing rock he comes too. It wore me down to the point I simply quit the game.

Also I couldn't blow up a simple tin shed with HE...fired like 5 rounds and gave up

[maturin 12]

Make a ticket with that picture, please.

Also I couldn't blow up a simple tin shed with HE...fired like 5 rounds and gave up

The farmhouses blow up just fine. And the sabot rounds no longer destroy houses, which is a HUGE improvement from A2.

[zukov 483]

the T100 doesn't have recoil on main gun (135 mm), like amv gorgon etc

the MLRS shoots only in one side idem for self propelled AA (all)

[St. Jimmy 272]

lock and zoom still the same command???? Thought this was supposed to change???

It has been changed while ago. The "Lock or zoom" really meens lock. BIS has just forget to change the name... Check your controls and change it.

[343rdBadger 0]

If you look at the T-100 from the side you can see the crew sticking out of the hull underneath the turret...how do they miss that sort of thing??!!

---------- Post added at 23:56 ---------- Previous post was at 22:58 ----------

You can kill the gunner or commander from OUTSIDE the tank with a rifle while they are turned in(shoot between the turret and hull)...now that's pretty lame.

[Hellbeard 10]

First impression of the slammer-jammer: tanks are awesome.

• Needs more commander's machinegun and/or sidearm and/or grenades. While turned out, crew members maintain the use of their hands and can perform actions like shooting or throwing a thing.
  
• I don't like the smoke grenades it launches because the real deal uses bursting smoke and not flowing smoke.
  
• The APFSDST is insanely underpowered. It took like 5 shots to make an APC stop and scratch itself. Are they aware that one of these can go through a tank, depending on location probably destroying/disabling it?
  
• Why the hell do I need to manually zero the sights like in the 1930's? Can't the ballistics computer get the range transmitted to it from the rangefinder?
  
• Why can't it have other cool future armaments aside from Kinetic and HEAT? How about some air-burst, programmable ammo?
  
• There are too few rounds.
  
• Should have smoke ejecting from barrel after shooting.
  
• Tank should be mounted from the 11 or 13 o'clock position.
  
• Engine doesn't seem loud enough.
  
• Driver should have the ability to generate smoke via exhaust.
  
• 
  

Check out the linked PDF.

http://www.imi-israel.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=67056

Some good point: the recoil looks good. The muzzle flash looks nicer but can stand to be yet bigger.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Hellbeard

[progamer 14]

When you fire the AP penetrate and go through vehicles killing the occupants without the stupid Hollywood explosions.

[stormin norman 10]

I'm sorely disappointed there are no firing ballistics computer on the main battle tanks. :(

The laser range finder stays on indefinitely? Wouldn't it burn out after a few seconds?

All we need for a "modern" system is a key binding for LRF and one for FCS. BI doesn't have to replicate it perfectly, but it very pedestrian the way they have it now.

Edit: I noticed if you l "Lock" a target, the range indicator switches to "Auto." :bounce3: But it doesn't seem very accurate. need more testing.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Stormin Norman

[343rdBadger 0]

This is getting ridiculous.Engaged a target at 2300 metres,destroyed it.Was lookijg for next target on the range(salt flat) but couldn't find it...hmmm...set distance to 6000 meters,and poof there it is just 100 meters behind the first target, ok,reset my view distance down to 3800 meters and the target disappears but I could still lock it.Why is a 2400 meter target disappearing with a view setting of 3800 meters???WTF.

[odie0351 67]

Also the 135mm gun on the T-100 is currently called 120mm on the hud right now, and the cannons are definatly under powered...or the armor on the scorcher is way over powered I shot it with the T-100 atleast 5 times with Sabot and an additional 3-5 rounds of HE-T before it went up. and whatever happened to the RCWS for the slammer, they definitely had an HMG equipped commander station in atleast a few of the screenshots ive seen. might just be old pics tho:(

[progamer 14]

Also the 135mm gun on the T-100 is currently called 120mm on the hud right now, and the cannons are definatly under powered...or the armor on the scorcher is way over powered I shot it with the T-100 atleast 5 times with Sabot and an additional 3-5 rounds of HE-T before it went up. and whatever happened to the RCWS for the slammer, they definitely had an HMG equipped commander station in atleast a few of the screenshots ive seen. might just be old pics tho:(

We don't need any useless "balancing". The issue is they are very unrealistic at the moment.

[Smurf 12]

There was a railgun which would have at least been cool even if a bit futuristic, but that got axed because of all the people who wanted the game to remain in early 2000s.

I really don't think this is the case.

______

AI isn't aware that their barrel can't clip through constructions, resulting in stuck units and some bumping and even flying tanks.

The magic radar must go, locking too.

[maturin 12]

This is getting ridiculous.Engaged a target at 2300 metres,destroyed it.Was lookijg for next target on the range(salt flat) but couldn't find it...hmmm...set distance to 6000 meters,and poof there it is just 100 meters behind the first target, ok,reset my view distance down to 3800 meters and the target disappears but I could still lock it.Why is a 2400 meter target disappearing with a view setting of 3800 meters???WTF.

Not sure why this is in a thread about tanks.

View Distance is the draw distance for terrain, or basic visibility.

There is another slider for objects view distance. Tanks are objects. Pretty basic stuff...

[Hellbeard 10]

I'm sorely disappointed there are no firing ballistics computer on the main battle tanks. :(

The laser range finder stays on indefinitely? Wouldn't it burn out after a few seconds?

All we need for a "modern" system is a key binding for LRF and one for FCS. BI doesn't have to replicate it perfectly, but it very pedestrian the way they have it now.

Edit: I noticed if you l "Lock" a target, the range indicator switches to "Auto." :bounce3: But it doesn't seem very accurate. need more testing.

It's a weird compromise if it does. The firing management computer may lock on and track a target; unrelatedly, the gunner can laze and get a distance. It's strange to lock on, but not track, and get a distance for something you're not even aiming at(is that the range you get?).

Not to seem like a bitter asshole, I want to mention that I love the game, I love the tanks and vehicles - the models and animations and all the obvious hard and passionate work put into everything. Thank you very much BI developers/employees, you've all done a swell job so far. Some little adjustments and improvements and things will be off to a marvelous start!

[odie0351 67]

We don't need any useless "balancing". The issue is they are very unrealistic at the moment.

I didn't say anything about balancing, im saying that in my game the T100 main gun is currently labled 120mm cannon even though in the vehicle descriptions in the manual it is stated that it is equipped with a 135mm cannon. if anything im saying the T100 is underpowered and instead should pretty much manhandle the slammer/merkava tanks in game, being as its supposed to be a more modern design and all. was also saying that a main battle tank such as the T100 shouldn't have to spend half its ordinance just to put a piece of self propelled artillery out of action being as they tend to be significantly less heavily armoured than their MBT cousins. if this is in reference to my questioning why the slammer doesn't have a HMG for the commander that is more about the fact the almost all current/previous/and more than likely future MBT's have a way for the commander to indepently engage infantry/thin skinned vehicles/ and aircraft. I wasn't saying that just because the T100 has a commanders weapons station the slammer has to have one too, just its unrealistic for it not to have a HMG for the commander.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Odie0351

[kuIoodporny 45]

Why do some vehicles crew's positions get thermal optics but no NV optics or vice versa?

That's how it is usually done IRL, if you check out tech data on state of the art tanks and APCs you'll find this out. People in turrets get thermal for purpose of night vision, the drivers don't need thermals so badly.

[*]The APFSDST is insanely underpowered. It took like 5 shots to make an APC stop and scratch itself. Are they aware that one of these can go through a tank, depending on location probably destroying/disabling it?

If you hit the engine compartment, the APC will stop. Second hit in this place will likely blow it up. Otherwise, you can neutralize turrets or kill the crews or cargo inside vehicle without dealing as much damage to whole vehicle. I believe it's a lot better than Arma 2's "One scratch to blow them all up" behavior.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

People in turrets get thermal for purpose of night vision, the drivers don't need thermals so badly.

It's actually now becoming quite common for vehicles to be fitted with drivers' thermal imaging systems (Long-wavelength infrared band) because it's better at seeing through smoke, fog and dust clouds thrown up by vehicles driving in front of the vehicle in a convoy, than traditional I2 systems.

True enough that for drivers it doesn't really have the same level of surveillance and target acquisition (STA) application that gunners and commanders use TI devices for, however IR can also help to indicate threats such as objects hidden on roads or at the roadside. Things like disturbed earth show up to some degree on the thermal/emissivity gradient which can indicate the location of buried objects (mines, IEDs etc) and IIRC to some extent this works in Arma with mines objects etc.

[343rdBadger 0]

Not sure why this is in a thread about tanks.

View Distance is the draw distance for terrain, or basic visibility.

There is another slider for objects view distance. Tanks are objects. Pretty basic stuff...

Maybe because IN A TANK my object setting was 2000ish and I was engaging at 2300 and target disappeared at 2400 but view was set to 3800...numbers make no sense

[aus_twisted 0]

Maybe because IN A TANK my object was 2000ish and I was engaging at 2300 and target disappeared at 2400 but view was set to 3800...numbers make no sense

Total view distance in ArmA is looking forwards and backwards combined which you can see both sides when higher up in a chopper and plane, 3800 = 1900 meters view distance one way.

[343rdBadger 0]

Total view distance in ArmA is looking forwards and backwards combined which you can see both sides when higher up in a chopper and plane, 3800 = 1900 meters view distance one way.

Then why was I able to see a 2300 meter distant target when set to 3800(divided by 2 =1900)???...numbers still don't add up

[maturin 12]

Your object view distance of 2000 determines when you can see the tank. The only reason you can see it a bit beyond 2000 is that that slider refers mostly to rocks and houses and such. Actual units are considered more 'important' and draw out a little bit farther.

But seriously, of all the things to stress out about... since when is exact view distance important in a mission? If you can't see something, change the damn slider.