Horrible Armor Immersion

[UltimateBawb 1]

Being glued to a 2D overlay is not an option anymore. Honestly, I have no idea what the hell Bohemia was thinking. There's even a damn fully modeled commander periscope on a few APC's, but instead we get a shit 2 overlay. Oh, and what's worse? How about weapon optics being the exact same for each faction? A simple vehicle interior is not that difficult to complete, OFP did it in 2001. BI says they're focusing on quality over quantity? Bullshit.

[Gekkibi 11]

Ah, other virtual tankers over here? :)

Yes, the lack of 3D cockpits is unforgivable. Why are there PIP monitors in 4x4 vehicles but not in bigger ones? Reverse camera in hunter when you could use your side mirrors as well, but MBT's suddenly don't need to know what's behind it?

Some additional missing features:

- everyone should be able to turn out even if the commander stays inside. For example in urban environment driver needs better field of vision than usually. It's too risky for the TC to turn out for this.

- we should have automatic FCS. What's the point that you have laser measurement equipment but still have to crank the distance manually? Tankers had some form of FCS during World War 2... But not in 2035?

- I'm hoping T-100 will get coax machinegun. It's a necessity. If you really want balance, then take away TC MG. TC MG != coax machinegun, and that's pretty clear for anyone who has even a small idea how to operate a MBT...

[Smurf 12]

Here we go again....

But since I'm already here: What about a lite version of RO2? Simple interiors, PiPs, cockpit interaction a la TkOH (and A3 mods) to replace the action menu (look at hatch, icon, click => turn out; look at frontal visor, icon, click => 2D overlay as now), no need for complex animations.

[UltimateBawb 1]

Ah, other virtual tankers over here? :)

Yes, the lack of 3D cockpits is unforgivable. Why are there PIP monitors in 4x4 vehicles but not in bigger ones? Reverse camera in hunter when you could use your side mirrors as well, but MBT's suddenly don't need to know what's behind it?

Some additional missing features:

- everyone should be able to turn out even if the commander stays inside. For example in urban environment driver needs better field of vision than usually. It's too risky for the TC to turn out for this.

- we should have automatic FCS. What's the point that you have laser measurement equipment but still have to crank the distance manually? Tankers had some form of FCS during World War 2... But not in 2035?

- I'm hoping T-100 will get coax machinegun. It's a necessity. If you really want balance, then take away TC MG. TC MG != coax machinegun, and that's pretty clear for anyone who has even a small idea how to operate a MBT...

Regarding the coax and TC MG, both the T100 and Merkava should have them. Hell, tanks today usually have a main gun, coax MG, TC MG, and loader MG. The tanks as of now are incredible unarmed. And having a 6.5mm coax? Bohemia please.

[Gekkibi 11]

Regarding the coax and TC MG, both the T100 and Merkava should have them. Hell, tanks today usually have a main gun, coax MG, TC MG, and loader MG. The tanks as of now are incredible unarmed. And having a 6.5mm coax? Bohemia please.

TC MG is not necessary (besides, it makes inexperienced players forget to do what TC is supposed to do), and some modern MBT's don't have it. But there's no harm having it, as long as all MBT's will have coax machinegun.

[cpl_hicks 2]

I fully agree on the lack of turn out and internal views especially since we had these features in all 3 simulators from the past.

I disagree on the scopes though, they are pretty different though not perfect but good enough to warrant not being as much a priority as vehicles imo.

[Gekkibi 11]

I fully agree on the lack of turn out and internal views especially since we had these features in all 3 simulators from the past.

I disagree on the scopes though, they are pretty different though not perfect but good enough to warrant not being as much a priority as vehicles imo.

Turn out is in Arma 3. The trick is that the commander must be turned out for you to turn out...

Scopes are different? Compare MBT scopes... ;)

[instagoat 133]

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13397 <- ticket for turning out/engine control/weapon control in tanks when using AI

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12555 <- ticket for improving the in-vehicle immersion through dynamic vision blocks instead of 3D interiors, interim solution.

Please vote on these to get BI's attention and move for change in these regards.

[aoshi 1]

they say, focus on infantary, but tanks are so much fun, bohemia should put a little more love to tanks =D

[2nd ranger 282]

I'm more of an infantry fan than anything else, but two main things bother me about the tank simulation:

1. They are far too quiet. This is especially true in A3 because the sound in general is messed up and most sounds drop off after a couple of hundred metres, but it's always seemed to me that you could barely hear (vanilla) armoured vehicles until they were right on top of you. Right now I can barely even hear the sound of my own engine. The main gun sound is a bit lackluster too, as is the sound of being hit by a main gun. Which brings me to...

2. Poor damage/hit immersion. I mentioned in another thread that when I was playing the Tanks showcase, at some point I had been damaged by an enemy vehicle, or perhaps an AT missile, but I didn't even notice I had been damaged until the battle was over and I looked at the status display in the top left. If that display wasn't there I wouldn't have known I had been damaged at all.

[icewindo 29]

No 3d interiors again? Oh boy... I'm not much of a tanker but that's really a strange decision, considering how "many" tanks there are.

[mbbird 11]

Yeah they frontloaded the Alpha a little bit with the very well modeled MRAPs and helicopters with interiors then totally gave up even BOTHERING with ANY of the other vehicles.

Vehicle simulation as a whole is pretty terrible right now.

[Hellbeard 10]

I'd like to jump on this bandwagon and play a quaint instrument as I'm doing so.

Really want interiors and better vehicle simulation pretty hard.

[-=seany=- 5]

I agree tanks/tracked vehicles need some serious work.

I really want to see a Fire Control computer similar to ACES's. I also want to see a different turret for the AA tank and Arty tank to more easily distinguish between the two major factions.

[nodunit 397]

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=13397 <- ticket for turning out/engine control/weapon control in tanks when using AI

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=12555 <- ticket for improving the in-vehicle immersion through dynamic vision blocks instead of 3D interiors, interim solution.

Please vote on these to get BI's attention and move for change in these regards.

Votes don't matter, have you seen the "blood type" ticket?

2. Poor damage/hit immersion. I mentioned in another thread that when I was playing the Tanks showcase, at some point I had been damaged by an enemy vehicle, or perhaps an AT missile, but I didn't even notice I had been damaged until the battle was over and I looked at the status display in the top left. If that display wasn't there I wouldn't have known I had been damaged at all.

Whats wrong with that? For the most part it's realistic.

[Gekkibi 11]

Votes don't matter, have you seen the "blood type" ticket?

I did. Was it really assigned, or am I having a nightmare?

[progamer 14]

I did. Was it really assigned, or am I having a nightmare?

Assigned means it is on a list for a developer to take a look at. It does not mean it is being worked on or made into the game.

[Gekkibi 11]

Assigned means it is on a list for a developer to take a look at. It does not mean it is being worked on or made into the game.

Now how about this problem: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=799

Check the date. Evaluate the priority. Count the upvotes compared to downvotes. Still open.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Gekkibi

[progamer 14]

Now how about this problem: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=799

Check the date. Evaluate the priority. Count the upvotes compared to downvotes. Still open.

No idea why, but it could be from a hardcoded Phsyx thing or something. I suspect the reason why the blood tranfusion thing is assigned so quick is because the know how from Dayz is already there and possible parts of the code already exist.

[Gekkibi 11]

No idea why, but it could be from a hardcoded Phsyx thing or something. I suspect the reason why the blood tranfusion thing is assigned so quick is because the know how from Dayz is already there and possible parts of the code already exist.

Yes, I understood this the second I saw it has been assigned. But this is still Arma 3, and not DayZ. And right now all the IFV's and MBT's have huge bugs. Non-movable ZSU VC periscope, able to kill T-100 turret crew with just a rifle, (near) immunity to AT-mines, tracked vehicles unable to get over sandbags, flying tanks if they hit something and you roll 2d6 and get less than 3, can't go uphill fast enough, etc, etc. These were just _some_ of the concrete bugs (in armored vehicles only). My wishlist wouldn't even fit on a forum page (and there's no real point making a list because "arma is infantry game, go play steel beast").

[Hellbeard 10]

Another thing I had thought of last night. When you're looking through the optic, you're seeing HD reality. The other vision modes are displayed on monitors. They should reflect a degradation in resolution which is a trade off for having magical heat vision.

[2nd ranger 282]

2. Poor damage/hit immersion. I mentioned in another thread that when I was playing the Tanks showcase, at some point I had been damaged by an enemy vehicle, or perhaps an AT missile, but I didn't even notice I had been damaged until the battle was over and I looked at the status display in the top left. If that display wasn't there I wouldn't have known I had been damaged at all.

Whats wrong with that? For the most part it's realistic.

So if you're in a tank and you get hit by an AT round or a round from another tank's main gun, you have no idea it happened?

[bart86pl 10]

For me the most missing things in A3 tanks are: No visual damage, 3d interiors would be nice, I can`t tell who is the gunner, driver ect - there is no info on the squad icons (or I missed something?).

But the most annoying thing is - those little stone walls that can stop the tank even in full speed, and there are tons of em on Altis!

[dm 9]

A simple vehicle interior is not that difficult to complete

Actually it is.

To make an interior to the same quality level as the exterior doubles (or more) the amount of time needed to create the asset.

If they were to make "low detail" interiors, they would be lambasted for "poor quality shitty models".

BI have clearly made the decision that for what it actually adds to gameplay, making interiors for MBTs is not worth the time it would take to do properly.

[zukov 490]

Actually it is.

To make an interior to the same quality level as the exterior doubles (or more) the amount of time needed to create the asset.

If they were to make "low detail" interiors, they would be lambasted for "poor quality shitty models".

BI have clearly made the decision that for what it actually adds to gameplay, making interiors for MBTs is not worth the time it would take to do properly.

why not the way like bf2? a little 3d tilting (sorry i have a problem to translate the last words) for the periscope and some fancy monitor, and for the exterior bouncing anntenas and good sound for the impacts